GIFT    OF 
EVGENE  MEYER,  JR. 


AMERICAN  DEBATE 

A   HISTORY   OF   POLITICAL  AND  ECONOMIC  CON 

TROVERSY    IN    THE    UNITED   STATES,   WITH 

CRITICAL  DIGESTS  OF  LEADING  DEBATES 


BY 


MARION  MILLS  MILLER,  LITT.D.  (PRINCETON) 

EDITOR  OF  "THE  LIFE  AND  WORKS  OF  ABRAHAM  LINCOLN,"  "GREAT  DEBATES  IN 


PARTI 

COLONIAL,  STATE,  AND  NATIONAL  RIGHTS 
1761-1861 


G.  P.  PUTNAM'S  SONS 

NEW  YORK  AND  LONDON 

Gbe  Knickerbocker  press 

1916 


COPYRIGHT,  1916 

BY 
G.  P.  PUTNAM'S  SONS 

/v 


Ube  Tknicherbocfcer  press,  flew  H?orfc 


TO  THE 

PATRIOTIC  CITIZENS   OF  AMERICA 

THAT  THEY   MAY 
"  KNOW  THEIR   RIGHTS,   AND,    KNOWING,    DARE    MAINTAIN.' 


PREFACE 

"CROM  the  days  of  Pericles  and  Thucydides  the 
statesmen  and  historians  of  young  democracies 
have  paid  great  attention  to  the  study  of  debates  as 
recording  the  arguments  by  which  the  principles  and 
institutions  of  their  governments  were  established. 
This  was  notably  the  case  with  early  American  public 
men  and  political  writers.  For  the  first  half  century  of 
the  life  of  the  Republic  the  records  of  Congress  were 
not  so  extensive  that  a  faithful  student  could  not  com 
pass  their  contents,  and  statesmen  such  as  Webster, 
Calhoun,  and  Ben  ton  largely  owed  their  reputation  to 
the  thoroughness  of  their  knowledge  of  the  statements 
made  by  their  predecessors  in  regard  to  constitutional 
law  and  governmental  policy.  Shortly  before  the 
Civil  War,  however,  the  recorded  Congressional  debates 
had  become  too  voluminous  for  such  first-hand  knowl 
edge,  and  ex- Senator  Benton,  impressed  with  the  impor 
tance  to  public  men  of  an  acquaintance  with  at  least 
the  opinions  and  arguments  of  the  more  prominent  of 
the  elder  statesmen  on  leading  questions  in  our  politi 
cal  history,  published  in  1857  in  twenty  volumes  an 
Abridgment  of  the  Debates  of  Congress  from  1789  to  1856, 
which  was  designed  to  supply  such  material,  although 
his  selections  from  the  debates  after  1850  were  exceed 
ingly  meager,  owing  to  the  advanced  age  of  the  editor. 
After  the  publication  of  this  monumental  work,  states- 


VI 


Preface 


men,  publicists,  and  even  historians  resorted  to  it  rather 
than  to  the  original  records  as  a  source  of  political  in 
formation,  supplying  the  gaps  which  Ben  ton  had  left— 
for  he  " played  up"  subjects  in  which  he  was  specially 
interested,  notably  the  currency,  to  the  minimization  of 
equally  or  even  more  important  ones  such  as  slavery, 
and  gave  great  space  to  the  speeches  of  his  favorite 
statesmen — especially  himself — which  should  have  been 
divided  with  other  men  whom  time  has  proved  to  have 
been  as  worthy  as  these,  and  in  some  instances  far 
greater  than  they.  Thus  in  his  abridgment  of  the 
speeches  on  the  Mexican  War  Benton  omitted  entirely 
the  arraignment  of  President  Polk  by  Representative 
Abraham  Lincoln,  a  masterpiece  of  satire,  and  reduced 
to  a  spiritless  paragraph  Senator  Cor  win's  denunciation 
of  the  war,  the  only  American  oration  which  in  daring 
attitude  and  fiery  eloquence  is  comparable  to  the 
elder  Pitt's  great  speech  on  behalf  of  the  American 
revolutionists. 

Lincoln  was  the  last  of  our  great  statesmen  to  make  a 
thorough  examination  of  the  official  records  to  gain 
information  first  hand  as  to  the  ideas  and  ideals  upon 
which  the  "Fathers"  founded  the  Republic  and  their 
successors  maintained  and  developed  it.  Thus,  in 
preparation  of  the  Cooper  Union  speech  on  "Slavery 
as  the  Fathers  Viewed  It"  (February,  1860),  which 
contributed  so  largely  to  his  nomination  for  the  Presi 
dency,  he  analyzed  Jonathan  Elliott's  Debates  on  the 
Federal  Constitution  (copyrighted  in  1836),  containing 
Judge  Robert  Yates's  and  James  Madison's  minutes  of 
the  same,  and  formed  a  perfect  enumeration  of  the 
opinions  therein  expressed  on  the  constitutional  aspect 
of  slavery. 

The  early  American   historians    also   employed    as 


Preface 


Vll 


their  chief  source  of  material  the  debates  in  the  Brit 
ish  Parliament  concerning  colonial  affairs;  in  the 
colonial  assemblies;  in  the  Continental  Congress;  in  the 
Congress  of  the  Confederation;  in  the  Constitutional 
Convention;  and  in  the  Federal  Congress.  Of  these 
writers  a  much  neglected  historian,  who  had  been  a 
Representative  in  Congress  of  sterling  ability  as  a  de 
bater,  Timothy  Pitkin,  of  Connecticut,  is  highly  repre 
sentative.  His  A  Political  and  Civil  History  of  the 
United  States  .  .  .  to  the  Close  of  the  Administration 
of  President  Washington,  published  in  two  volumes  at 
New  Haven  in  1828,  still  forms  the  best  handy  collection 
and  digest  of  the  State  papers  and  political  speeches  and 
debates  relative  to  America  from  the  original  charters  of 
the  colonies  down  to  the  Farewell  Address  of  the  first 
President  of  the  Republic.  As  such  it  has  been  largely 
drawn  upon  by  the  writer  of  the  present  book. 

Owing  to  the  vast  and  ever-increasing  volume  of 
Congressional  discussions,  and  the  lack  of  logical 
arrangement  in  presenting,  and  indeed  in  indexing, 
these  in  the  official  records,  our  more  recent  statesmen 
and  writers  have  neglected  the  study  of  debates  in  their 
original  form,  and  relied  upon  the  summarizing  state 
ments  of  historians  and  publicists  for  information 
concerning  the  political  issues  and  opinions  of  the  pre 
ceding  generations.  Too  often  they  have  elected  as  the 
"authorities"  to  be  followed  those  whose  views  sup 
ported  their  own  partisan  opinions. 

The  distortion  and  obscuration  of  truth  which  inevi 
tably  results  from  such  a  practice  is  fully  recognized  by 
conscientious  scholars  and  teachers,  and  other  conser 
vators  of  accurate  knowledge  such  as  librarians  and 
collectors  of  Americana.  These  persons  welcome  every 
authentic  "source  book"  which  presents  in  available 


viii  Preface 

form  the  original  expression  of  ideas  which  have  in 
fluenced  American  thought  and  institutions.  Accord 
ingly,  with  faith  in  the  immediate  recognition  by  them 
of  the  value  of  the  book,  and  in  the  ultimate  apprecia 
tion  of  it  by  the  public,  the  present  writer  edited  in  1913 
for  the  Current  Literature  Publishing  Company  of 
New  York  a  work  in  fourteen  volumes  entitled  Great 
Debates  in  American  History,  which  presented  in  topical 
order  the  text  of  Congressional  and  other  public  dis 
cussions  of  the  chief  issues  in  our  politics  from  the 
debates  on  the  Stamp  Act  (1764-65)  down  to  the  close 
of  the  Taf  t  Administration  (1912-13).  By  the  courtesy 
of  the  publishers  the  writer  is  permitted  to  use  as  a 
basis  for  the  digests  in  the  present  book  the  more 
important  debates  in  the  compilation,  thus  saving  him 
recourse  again  to  official  records  and  a  repetition  of  the 
labor  of  excising  unimportant  material,  the  first  process 
in  an  abridgment  which  would  be  necessarily  extended 
to  a  far  greater  degree  in  the  smaller  work.  It  must  not 
be  inferred  from  this  statement,  however,  that  AMERICAN 
DEBATE  is,  either  in  material  or  editorial  form, a  "boiled- 
down"  edition  of  Great  Debates  in  American  History. 
Entirely  new  debates  essential  to  the  author's  purpose 
of  presenting  a  connected  political  history  of  the  coun 
try  appear  in  the  smaller  work. 

The  plans  of  the  two  books  are  wholly  different. 
The  earlier  work  is  a  compilation  in  which  the  writer 
acted  as  an  editor.  The  present  book  is  a  history  and  a 
treatise  of  which  the  writer  may  legitimately  claim 
to  be  the  author.  Yet  it  is  hoped  that  the  reader 
will  feel  in  the  smaller  work  the  spirit  which  animates 
the  larger,  concerning  which  a  reviewer  in  the  New 
York  Evening  Sun  said:  "Anybody  who  finds  such  de 
bates  unattractive  must  be  insensible  to  the  interest 


Preface 


IX 


of  history,  which  is  the  very  romance  of  the  race  in 
record." 

While  compiling  the  former  work  the  writer  was 
required  by  the  ethics  of  his  editorial  position  to  exclude 
accounts  of  political  events  concerning  which  there  were 
no  debates,  and  to  refrain  from  comments  on  the  valid 
ity  of  the  arguments  set  forth  and  on  the  skill  of  the 
debaters,  however  much  he  was  impelled  to  make  such 
observations.  He  therefore  resolved  to  produce  at  a 
later  time  a  short  but  continuous  political  history  of  the 
United  States  largely  but  not  exclusively  as  reflected 
in  debates  on  issues  of  supreme  importance,  which 
work  should  serve  also  as  a  manual  upon  the  Art  of 
Debate,  to  this  end  containing  an  exposition  of  forensic 
principles  and  practice  as  exemplified  in  the  logic  and 
parliamentary  finesse  of  our  greatest  statesmen.  Since 
many  treatises  exist  upon  the  Art  of  Oratory  with 
examples  of  American  eloquence  he  determined  to  sub 
ordinate  rhetoric  to  argument  in  his  choice  of  selections, 
and  his  comment  thereon.  Nevertheless,  so  frequent, 
and,  as  a  rule,  so  fitted  to  the  purpose  of  the  speaker  are 
flights  of  oratory  in  the  literature  of  American  debate, 
that  any  work  on  the  subject  could  not  fail  to  afford 
examples  of  eloquence  suited  for  declamation  and 
exemplification  of  the  rhetoric  of  public  speaking. 

AMERICAN  DEBATE  is  in  fulfillment  of  this  plan.  It  is 
intended  to  serve  as  (i)  an  historical  account  of  main 
subjects  of  public  discussion  in  the  United  States  down 
to  the  beginning  of  the  Civil  War;  (2)  an  exposition  of 
the  chief  political  and  economic  principles  which  have 
been  incorporated  in  the  legislation  and  the  govern 
mental  institutions  of  the  country;  (3)  a  history  of 
American  political  issues  and  events;  (4)  a  treatise 
upon  the  art  of  debate  as  exemplified  in  American  fo- 


x  Preface 

rensic contests;  (5)  a  guide  to  the  Congressional  records 
and  the  best  compilations  of  debates  and  individual 
speeches;  (6)  a  collection  of  examples  of  American 
eloquence;  and  (7)  a  collection  of  short  biographies  of 
leading  statesmen,  with  appreciations  of  their  abilities, 
particularly  as  debaters. 

Abstracts  of  great  debates,  with  verbatim  quotations 
of  the  most  significant  passages  in  the  speeches,  form 
the  nuclei  of  the  book.  These  are  introduced  by  recitals 
of  the  events  leading  up  to  the  debates  and  expositions 
of  the  issues  involved,  and  are  accompanied  by  a  run 
ning  critical  comment  by  the  author  upon  the  conduct 
of  the  argument  and  the  ability  of  the  debaters,  which 
is  occasionally  enforced  and  supplemented  by  opinions, 
chiefly  contemporaneous,  of  other  critics. 

Volume  I  is  concerned  with  political,  or,  more  strict 
ly,  constitutional  debates :  the  controversies  which  oc 
cupied  the  chief  attention  of  the  American  people  from 
Colonial  days  until  the  Civil  War,  namely,  those  over 
Colonial  Rights,  Nationality,  State  Rights,  and  Se 
cession.  Volume  II  treats  of  economic  debates:  the 
controversies  over  Land  and  Slavery,  which  was  the 
form  that  the  Labor  question  chiefly  assumed  in 
the  period  of  our  national  history  before  the  Civil 
War. 

The  accounts  of  these  debates  are  connected  by  an 
outline  of  intervening  political  events  and  discussions, 
the  dates  of  the  latter  being  given  to  enable  the  reader 
to  find  the  texts  of  the  same  in  full  in  the  Congressional 
records,  and  volume  and  page  references  being  made  to 
the  places  where  more  or  less  abridged  texts  may  be 
consulted  in  Great  Debates  in  American  History,  and  in 
compilations  of  speeches  such  as  American  Orations, 
edited  by  Alexander  Johnston  and  James  Albert  Wood- 


Preface  xi 

burn,  and  published  by  G.  P.  Putnam's  Sons,  New 
York.  In  order  to  save  the  reader  troublesome  resort 
to  biographical  dictionaries  for  personal  data  concern 
ing  the  principal  debaters,  short  sketches  of  the  lives  of 
these  are  presented  in  connection  with  the  debates. 
The  author  has  made  it  a  rule  to  reduce  reference  to 
other  books  so  far  as  the  limitations  of  the  book  permit. 

It  is  believed,  therefore,  that,  owing  to  its  unusual 
character,  its  visualizing  and  vitalizing  point  of  view, 
the  book  will  prove  acceptable  to  all  persons  interested 
in  American  history,  politics,  civics,  and  economics, 
especially  teachers  and  students  in  academies,  colleges, 
and  professional  schools,  and  those  outside  of  such 
institutions  who  desire  to  become  forcible  and  persuasive 
speakers  in  legislative  halls,  at  the  bar,  or  on  the  public 
platform,  or  who  wish  to  train  themselves  in  writing 
intelligently  and  cogently  on  political  and  economic 
topics. 

The  effective  speakers  and  writers  on  serious  subjects 
are  those  who  are  in  possession  of  exact  information, 
whose  principles  are  fundamental,  whose  logic  is  clear 
and  sound,  and  who,  by  an  imagination  cultivated  until 
it  is  spontaneous,  can  place  themselves  and  the  persons 
addressed  in  the  situations  which  are  described.  The 
study  of  the  principles  of  debate  and  their  practical 
exemplification  develop  all  these  acquisitions  and 
faculties.  It  was  this  that  lifted  the  early  American 
statesmen  and  writers,  even  authors  in  seemingly 
remote  fields  of  literature,  such  as  poetry,  to  a  higher 
plane  than  that  warranted  by  the  general  state  of 
culture  in  the  country.  The  citizens  of  that  day  were 
all  vitally  interested  in  politics,  especially  as  revealed 
in  public  discussion.  They  fully  realized  that  the  genera 
tion  of  which  they  were  a  part  was  making  basic  history 


Xll 


Preface 


— was  establishing  the  principles  upon  which  the  nation 
was  to  develop  not  only  along  political  and  economic 
lines  but  also  in  social  and  artistic  culture.  As  the 
writer  said  in  his  preface  to  Great  Debates  in  American 
History:  "Debate  is  the  crucible  of  law,  which  is  the 
metal  of  history."  The  modern  method  of  acquiring 
general  ideas  of  American  legislation  and  government 
through  the  reflected  views  of  historians  and  publicists 
can  never  be  as  impressive  as  a  direct  presentation  of  the 
acts  of  fusing  and  casting  these  laws  and  institutions. 
Until  such  processes  are  visualized,  making  the  reader 
in  effect  a  contemporary  of  the  action,  it  cannot  be  said 
that  he  truly  knows  them.  When  he  has  felt  in  his  own 
spirit  the  fervor  of  the  builders  of  the  nation,  then  only 
can  he  exclaim  with  the  favorite  poet  of  our  fathers, 
the  patriotic  Longfellow: 

Thou,  too,  sail  on,  O  Ship  of  State! 
Sail  on,  O  Union,  strong  and  great  I 

We  know  what  Master  laid  thy  keel, 
What  Workmen  wrought  thy  ribs  of  steel, 

Who  made  each  mast,  and  sail,  and  rope, 
What  anvils  rang,  what  hammers  beat, 
In  what  a  forge  and  what  a  heat 

Were  shaped  the  anchors  of  thy  hope! 

M.  M.  MILLER. 
THE  AUTHORS  CLUB, 
NEW  YORK  CITY, 


CONTENTS 

PAGE 

PREFACE      v 

CHAPTER 

I.— WRITS  OF  ASSISTANCE  i 

II.— THE  STAMP  ACT 16 

III. — SUPREMACY  OF  PARLIAMENT        ...  40 

IV. — MASSACHUSETTS  vs.  PARLIAMENT         .         .  57 

V.— CONGRESS  vs.  PARLIAMENT          ...  84 

VI. — INDEPENDENCE 120 

VII.— THE  ARTICLES  OF  CONFEDERATION      .         .161 

VIII.— THE  CONSTITUTION 177 

IX. — FEDERALIST  vs.  REPUBLICAN       .         .         .  240 

X. — NATIONAL  DEFENSE 298 

XL — NULLIFICATION 34$ 

XII.— SECESSION 387 

INDEX                         437 


xiii 


American  Debate 


CHAPTER  I' 

WRITS  OF  ASSISTANCE 
I76l 

Navigation  Acts — Acts  of  the  British  Board  of  Trade  and  Planta 
tions — British  Restriction  of  American  Manufactures — Adam 
Smith's  Indictment  of  the  British  Colonial  System — Friendly 
Colonial  Policies  of  Walpole  and  the  Elder  Pitt— The  "Molasses 
Act" — British  Attempt  to  Enforce  it  in  Massachusetts  by  "Writs 
of  Assistance" — Test  Trial  of  the  Writs — Argument  of  Jeremiah 
Gridley,  King's  Counsel,  in  Favor  of  the  Writs — Arguments  of 
Oxenbridge  Thacher  and  James  Otis,  Opposed — Sketches  of 
Counsel — Abstract,  with  Comments,  by  John  Adams  of  Otis's 
Speech— Result  of  the  Trial. 

THE    first    considerable    disagreement    which    rose 
between  the  American  colonies  and  the  mother 
country  was  in  regard  to  the  navigation  acts. 

Hardly  had  the  Virginia  colonists  established  them 
selves  when  the  English  government  began  to  seek  a 
revenue  from  them  and  to  plan  for  a  monopoly  of  their 
trade  by  English  merchants  and  manufacturers.  These 
ends  they  sought  to  accomplish  by  laying  a  tariff  on 
their  sole  product  at  the  time,  tobacco,  and  by  pro 
hibiting  their  commerce  in  it  with  foreign  nations. 

1  Chapter  I.,  "Colonial  Charters,"  in  Volume  II.  forms  also  an 
introduction  to  this  volume. 

I 


2  American  Debate  [1761 

James  I.,  consistently  with  his  personal  opposition  to 
the  use  of  the  "Indian  weed"  (he  had  published 
anonymously  in  1604  a  Counterblaste  to  Tobacco),  but 
undoubtedly  more  greatly  moved  by  his  royal  desire 
for  tribute,  laid  heavy  duties  on  importation  of  that 
article  from  Virginia  into  his  kingdom. 

In  consequence  of  this  action  the  Virginia  Company 
in  1621  sent  all  their  tobacco  to  Holland,  thereby 
occasioning  a  loss  of  revenue  to  the  English  govern 
ment  and  of  trade  to  English  merchants  and  manu 
facturers.  To  prevent  this  in  the  future  the  Crown  and 
Council,  who  then  and  long  afterwards  regulated  the 
affairs  of  the  American  plantations,  prohibited  the 
exportation  from  the  colonies  of  tobacco  and  all  other 
productions  to  foreign  ports  unless  they  were  first  landed 
in  England  and  the  customs  were  paid,  stating  as  an 
equitable  reason  for  doing  so  that  the  colonies  had 
received  immunities  from  the  Crown  with  a  view  to  their 
incorporation  into  the  English  commonwealth,  to  which 
condition  trading  with  a  foreign  nation  was  claimed  to 
be  repugnant.  These  orders,  however,  were  not  rigidly 
enforced,  even  by  royal  governors,  and,  in  order  to 
cure  this  negligence,  soon  after  the  Restoration  the 
English  Parliament  passed  a  sweeping  navigation  act 
(i2th  Car.  II.)  enforcing  the  order  of  James  I.,  and 
specially  enumerating  as  monopolized  products,  sugar, 
tobacco,  cotton,  indigo,  ginger,  fustic,  and  other  dyeing 
woods.  This  was  followed  in  1663  by  an  act  limiting  the 
import  trade  of  the  colonies  to  productions  shipped  in 
England  and  in  English  bottoms.  The  preamble  of  the 
act  boldly  confessed  that  it  was  framed  for  the  benefit 
of  the  mother  country,  and  cited  as  a  precedent  the 
usage  of  other  nations  in  monopolizing  their  planta 
tion  trade. 


1761]  Writs  of  Assistance  3 

These  acts  the  colonists  regarded  as  highly  injurious 
to  their  interests,  depriving  them  of  the  natural  right 
to  seek  the  best  markets  and  procure  the  best  goods  at 
the  least  expense.  Indeed,  in  some  colonies,  Rhode 
Island  and  Massachusetts  in  particular,  they  were 
held  to  be  in  violation  of  charter  rights,  and  were 
totally  disregarded.  Virginia,  which  could  not  claim 
chartered  immunity,  humbly  petitioned  for  repeal  of 
the  acts,  but  its  prayer  was  not  heeded.  In  1671 
Governor  Berkeley  protested  to  the  Board  of  Trade 
that  the  restrictions  of  the  navigation  act,  cutting  off 
all  trade  with  foreign  countries,  were  very  injurious  to 
the  Virginians,  as  they  were  obedient  to  the  laws.  And 
"this,"  says  he,  "is  the  cause  why  no  small  or  great 
vessels  are  built  here ;  for  we  are  most  obedient  to  all 
laws,  whilst  the  New  England  men  break  through, 
and  men  trade  to  any  place  that  their  interest  leads 
them." 

In  1677  Edward  Randolph,  officer  of  the  customs  in 
New  England,  reported  that  Massachusetts  paid  no 
notice  to  these  or  any  other  laws  made  in  England  for 
the  regulation  of  trade,  but  acted  as  if  it  "would  make 
the  world  believe"  it  was  "a  free  State."  The  King 
and  his  ministry  were  greatly  displeased  with  the  in 
subordinate  colony,  and  the  General  Court  of  Massa 
chusetts,  fearing  that  non-compliance  with  the  acts 
would  lead  to  a  total  breach  with  the  mother  country 
and  condign  punishment  of  the  colony,  yet  desiring  to 
maintain  the  principle  of  independence  of  Parliament, 
whose  authority  they  denied  since  Massachusetts  was 
not  represented  therein,  passed  a  law  of  the  colony  that 
the  acts,  despite  the  hardship  they  entailed,  should  be 
complied  with. 

In  1696  the  affairs  of  the  colonies  were  placed  by  the 


4  American  Debate  [1761 

British  government  in  charge  of  "a  Board  of  Trade  and 
Plantations/'  with  special  instructions  to  inquire  into 
the  commerce  of  the  colonies  in  order  to  discover  how  it 
could  be  regulated  for  the  good  of  the  mother  country. 
About  the  same  time  Parliament  passed  an  act  clothing 
custom-house  officers  in  America  with  the  powers  of 
those  in  England  to  visit  and  search  vessels  and 
houses  for  the  purpose  of  seizing  goods  illegally  im 
ported.  The  act  nullified  all  colonial  laws  and  usages 
which  were  repugnant  to  the  navigation  acts,  and  even 
declared  void  any  law  relating  to  the  colonies  "hereafter 
to  be  passed  in  this  kingdom.11 

The  "  Molasses  Act."  The  navigation  acts  con 
tinuing  to  be  disregarded  by  the  northern  colonies, 
Parliament,  in  order  to  punish  them,  and  to  empha 
size  its  displeasure  by  favoring,  at  the  same  time, 
the  southern  colonies,  in  which  cane-growing  had 
been  introduced,  imposed  duties  so  heavy  as  to  be 
virtually  prohibitive  on  sugar  and  molasses  imported 
into  the  plantations  from  foreign  colonies,  that  is, 
from  the  West  Indies.  This  law,  called  the  "Molasses 
Act,"  was  so  oppressive,  in  that  if  enforced  it  would 
destroy  a  chief  industry  of  New  England,  the  manu 
facture  of  rum,  and  seriously  cripple  the  main  livelihood 
of  the  people,  fishing,  by  which  they  were  enabled  to 
secure  in  exchange  West  Indian  products,  and  it  was 
also  so  palpably  punitive  in  intent,  that  it  could  never 
be  executed.  The  attempt  to  enforce  it,  as  we  shall 
shortly  see,  was  the  beginning  of  the  breach  between 
the  colonies  and  the  mother  country. 

Anti-Manufacturing  Acts.  Before  coming  to  the 
controversy  over  this  issue  it  is  in  place  here  to  revert 
to  the  efforts  of  England  to  secure  a  monopoly  of  the 
consumption  as  well  as  of  the  production  of  the  colonies. 


1761]  Writs  of  Assistance  5 

In  1699  Parliament  enacted  that  "no  wool,  yarn,  or 
woollen  manufactures  of  the  American  plantations 
should  be  shipped  there,  or  even  laden,  in  order  to  be 
transported  from  thence,  to  any  place  whatsoever." 
Later  declarations  confessed  that  this  was  to  prevent 
manufacturing  in  the  colonies,  in  order  to  maintain 
their  dependence  upon  Great  Britain.  In  despite  of 
these  restrictions,  manufacturing  increased  in  America 
so  greatly  that  British  manufacturers  complained  of  it 
to  Parliament,  whereupon,  in  1731,  the  House  of 
Commons  instructed  the  Board  of  Trade  to  inquire  into 
the  matter.  The  Board,  however,  made  a  report  sym 
pathetic  with  the  colonists,  even  recommending  en 
couragement  of  silk,  linen,  and  woollen  manufactures  in 
New  England  as  being  of  service  to  Great  Britain, 
particularly  in  the  supply  of  naval  stores. 

Nevertheless  the  company  of  hatters  in  London  had 
sufficient  influence  with  Parliament  to  procure  in  1732 
the  prohibition  of  intercolonial  commerce  in  hats,  the 
limitation  to  two  of  the  number  of  apprentices  in  each 
colonial  hat  factory,  the  requirement  that  these  should 
serve  seven  years  before  being  employed  as  laborers, 
and  the  exclusion  of  negroes  from  such  employment. 

The  British  iron  manufacturers  were  next  heard  from. 
They  were  willing,  they  said,  to  permit  the  colonists 
to  reduce  the  iron  ore,  in  which  America  abounded,  into 
pigs  and  bar  iron,  and  to  transport  the  same  to  England 
duty  free,  but  they  demanded  for  themselves  a  mon 
opoly  of  the  succeeding  processes  of  manufacture.  This 
was  granted  in  1750  by  an  act  which  prohibited  under 
heavy  fines  the  erection  or  maintenance  of  mills  and 
engines  for  slitting  or  rolling  iron,  and  of  plating  forges, 
tilt  hammers,  and  furnaces  for  making  steel. 

Indictments  of  British  Colonial  Policy.     Such  was 


6  American  Debate  [1761 

the  selfish  colonial  policy  of  Great  Britain  which  was  in 
1776  to  receive  two  notable  indictments:  that  of  the 
thirteen  great  provinces  which  had  been  lost  by  the  sys 
tem,  framed  in  the  immortal  phrases  of  Jefferson;  and 
the  less  known  but  equally  condemnatory  words  of 
Adam  Smith,  whose  Wealth  of  Nations,  completed  four 
years  before,  was  published  in  the  same  year.  Said  the 
great  British  economist  at  the  close  of  an  outline  of  the 
system : 

"To  prohibit  a  great  people  .  .  .  from  making  all  they  can 
of  every  part  of  their  own  produce,  or  from  employing  their 
stock  and  industry  in  the  way  they  judge  most  advan 
tageous  to  themselves,  is  a  manifest  violation  of  the  sacred 
rights  of  mankind." 

It  must  not  be  thought  that  there  were  no  influential 
men  in  Great  Britain  before  the  time  of  Adam  Smith 
broad-minded  enough  to  see  the  folly  of  their  country's 
colonial  policy.  Indeed,  the  most  powerful  statesmen, 
the  prime  ministers  Walpole  and  the  elder  Pitt,  did  all 
they  could  to  render  inoperative  the  unwise  acts  of 
Parliament  in  respect  to  the  colonies,  ignoring  in 
particular  the  navigation  acts  and  the  laws  passed  for 
the  restriction  of  manufactures.  Walpole  went  so  far 
as  to  state  boldly  that  his  policy  had  always  been  to 
encourage  American  commerce  to  the  utmost  latitude, 
and  that  to  this  end  he  had  passed  over  infractions  of 
the  navigation  acts  in  respect  to  trade  with  European 
nations  other  than  Great  Britain.  Such  commerce,  he 
claimed,  would  greatly  increase  the  wealth  of  the 
Americans,  and,  since  the  bulk  of  their  trade  would 
naturally  remain  with  Great  Britain,  more  and  more  of 
•British  products  would  be  taken  by  them  in  exchange 
profitable  to  both  parties.  "This  is  taxing  them,"  he 


1761]  Writs  of  Assistance  7 

astutely  said,  "more  agreeably  to  their  constitution  and 
laws." 

Writs  of  Assistance.  Pitt,  as  we  shall  see  later,  held 
similar  views.  However,  during  the  last  two  years  of  his 
glorious  administration  from  1757  to  1761,  when  there 
was  need  of  revenue  from  every  source  owing  to  the  wars 
incurred  by  his  vigorous  foreign  policy,  and  when  he  had 
to  meet  opposition  among  the  members  of  his  ministry, 
who  were  narrow-minded  "  little  Englanders,"  out  of 
sympathy  with  his  broad  scheme  of  empire-building,  an 
attempt  was  made  to  collect  the  odious  duties  on  foreign 
sugar  and  molasses  imposed  on  the  colonies.  In  1760, 
orders  were  sent  to  the  American  custom-house  officers, 
particularly  in  Massachusetts,  to  enforce  the  orders  of 
trade  in  this  regard.  These  officers  were  directed  to 
apply,  if  necessary,  to  the  Superior  Court  of  Massachu 
setts  for  "writs  of  assistance"  to  enable  them  legally  to 
break  open  and  enter  shops,  storehouses,  etc.,  in  order 
to  search  for  foreign  goods  on  which  the  duties  had  not 
been  paid.  This  was  in  accordance  with  the  usages  of 
the  court  of  exchequer  in  Great  Britain. 

The  people  were  greatly  aroused  by  the  orders  of  the 
ministry.  The  enforcement  of  the  "Molasses  Act" 
they  realized  would  destroy  an  important  industry  of 
New  England,  the  manufacture  of  rum  and  its  sale 
abroad,  particularly  in  Africa,  where  it  was  largely 
exchanged  for  slaves,  cut  them  out  of  the  profitable 
trade  as  middlemen  between  the  foreign  West  Indies 
and  Europe,  and  greatly  cripple  their  chief  depen 
dence  for  a  livelihood,  fishing,  since  it  was  fish  that 
they  gave  in  exchange  for  the  West  Indian  products. 
The  royal  Governor  of  Massachusetts,  Sir  Francis 
Bernard,  reported  to  the  British  Government  that  the 
publication  of  the  orders  had  "caused  a  greater  alarm 


8  American  Debate  [1761 

in  the  country  than  the  taking  of  Fort  William  Henry 
by  the  French  in  1757." 

The  first  application  for  a  writ  of  assistance  was  made 
at  Salem,  Massachusetts,  in  November,  1760,  to 
Stephen  Sewall,  Chief- Justice  of  the  Superior  Court  of 
the  province.  Judge  Sewall,  a  learned  jurist,  expressed 
doubts  as  to  the  legality  of  the  writ  and  his  power  to 
grant  it,  and  directed  the  question  to  be  argued  at  the 
next  term  of  court,  in  Boston,  in  February,  1761. 
Before  this  date  Sewall  died,  and  Thomas  Hutchinson 
was  appointed  in  his  place,  a  judge  of  incipient  Tory 
proclivities  which  were  shortly  to  be  emphatically 
expressed. z 

The  merchants  of  Boston,  being  specially  concerned 
over  the  outcome  of  the  trial,  resolved  to  resist  the 
application  with  the  best  legal  talent  available.  Accord 
ingly  they  engaged  Oxenbridge  Thacher  and  James  Otis, 
two  of  the  most  distinguished  lawyers  in  Boston,  being 
surpassed  in  reputation  only  by  Jeremiah  Gridley,  the 
king's  attorney,  whose  duty  it  was  to  support  the 
application  for  the  writs.  Mr.  Gridley  was  an  older 
man  than  his  opponents,  having  been  graduated  from 
Harvard  in  1725 ;  indeed,  he  had  been  the  law  teacher  of 
Otis.  He  was  a  Whig  in  principle,  and  after  the  trial 
was  probably  glad  in  his  heart  at  the  triumph  over  him 
which  was  achieved  by  his  brilliant  pupil. 

Thacher  and  Otis  were  both  graduates  of  Harvard. 
Thacher  at  the  time  of  the  application  for  the  writs 
was  one  of  the  four  representatives  of  Boston  in  the 
legislature. 2  He  had  already  asserted  the  rights  of  the 

1  See  Chapter  IV. 

2  The  "General  Court,"  as  this  was  called,  was  composed  of  two 
branches:     (i)  the  Council,  of  twenty-eight  members,  chosen  annually 
by  joint  ballot  of  the  old  Council  and  the  House  of  Representatives,  the 


1761]  Writs  of  Assistance  9 

colonists  in  a  pamphlet,  Sentiments  of  a  British- American, 
occasioned  by  an  Act  to  Lay  Certain  Duties  in  the  British 
Colonies  and  Possessions.  John  Adams  said,  "the  ad 
vocates  of  the  Crown  hated  him  worse  than  they  did 
James  Otis  or  Samuel  Adams." 

Sketch  of  Otis.  James  Otis  was  a  fine  classical  and 
literary  scholar,  publishing  a  work  on  Latin  Prosody 
and  a  dissertation  on  The  Power  of  Harmony  in  Prosaic 
Composition.  He  is  chiefly  noted,  however,  for  his  po 
litical  writings  and  orations,  the  latter  procuring  him  the 
title  in  American  history  of  "the  Patrick  Henry  of  New 
England."  Though  stout  in  figure  he  was  very  graceful. 
His  face  was  handsome,  his  eye  piercing,  and  his  voice 
strong  in  quality  and  musical  in  modulation.  His  po 
litical  works  are  A  Vindication  of  the  Conduct  of  the  Repre 
sentation  of  Massachusetts  Bay  (1762),  The  Rights  of  the 
British  Colonies  Asserted  and  Proved  (1764),  Considera 
tions  on  Behalf  of  the  Colonists  (1765),  and  A  Vindication 
of  the  Colonies  (1765).  John  Adams  said  that  these 
contained  every  argument  to  be  found  in  the  Declara 
tions  of  Rights  and  Wrongs  issued  by  Congress  in  1774, 
the  Declaration  of  Independence,  the  French  constitu 
tions,  the  writings  of  Price,  Priestley,  Paine,  et  al.  In 
1765-66  Otis  represented  Massachusetts  in  the  Colonial 
Congress.  As  chairman  of  a  committee  to  reply  to 
Governor  Bernard  of  Massachusetts,  who  had  resented 
in  a  message  the  proceedings  of  the  Congress,  he  re 
vealed  a  refreshing  spirit  of  fearlessness.  Against 
strong  objections  by  those  who  favored  secrecy  in  legis- 


Governor  having  the  power  to  reject  thirteen  of  the  number;  and  (2) 
the  House  of  Representatives,  chosen  annually  by  the  towns.  The 
House  had  power  over  all  money  matters.  The  concurrence  of  both 
chambers  was  necessary  to  the  adoption  of  acts,  and  the  King  had  the 
power  of  annulling  any  act  within  three  years  after  its  passage. 


io  American  Debate  [1761 

lative  proceedings  he  instituted  the  practice  of  opening 
the  galleries  of  Congress  to  the  public,  which  has  been 
continued  to  the  present  as  a  vital  feature  of  popular 
government.  In  1767  he  urged  moderation  in  action 
against  the  tax  on  tea,  the  following  of  which  advice 
caused  Governor  Bernard  to  assure  the  British  govern 
ment  that  it  need  fear  no  opposition.  In  the  meantime 
Otis  was  inspiring  his  fellow-citizens  with  resistance  to 
the  subversion  of  their  rights.  His  career  came  to  a 
close  in  1769,  when  he  was  assaulted  by  a  gang  led  by 
a  commissioner  of  customs  whom  he  had  offended  in  a 
newspaper  controversy.  Thereafter  he  was  subject  to 
fits  of  insanity.  In  one  of  his  lucid  intervals  he  served 
as  a  volunteer  at  the  battle  of  Bunker  Hill,  and  in  an 
other  he  tried  a  law  case.  He  was  killed  by  lightning  in 
1783,  a  form  of  death  which  he  had  often  said  he  desired. 

At  the  time  when  the  writs  of  assistance  were  applied 
for  Mr.  Otis  occupied  the  position  of  colonial  advocate- 
general,  an  officer  of  the  Crown  whose  duty  it  was  to 
defend  the  writs.  But,  as  he  believed  them  "  illegal  and 
tyrannical,"  he  resigned  his  lucrative  office  to  appear  as 
counsel  for  the  people. 

Mr.  Gridley  supported  the  grant  of  the  writs  as 
authorized  by  a  statute  of  William  III.  passed  in  1701 
to  enforce  more  effectually  the  old  navigation  acts.  Mr. 
Thacher  and  Mr.  Otis  opposed  it  because  it  prayed  for  a 
writ  unknown  in  the  history  of  colonial  jurisprudence, 
and  which,  if  granted,  would  be  an  instrument  of 
tyranny  and  oppression. 

Unfortunately  the  speeches  of  Mr.  Gridley  and  of 
Mr.  Thacher  were  not  recorded,  and  that  of  Mr.  Otis 
was  preserved  only  in  part.  The  latter  spoke  for  five 
hours,  holding  his  hearers  no  less  by  the  power  of  his 
arguments  than  by  the  spell  of  his  eloquence.  John 


1761]  Writs  of  Assistance  n 

Adams,  to  whose  recollection  is  due  the  preservation  of 
the  fragments  of  Otis's  speech,  after  a  lapse  of  fifty- 
seven  years  in  a  letter  to  his  friend  William  Tudor 
recurred  to  the  scenes  then  passing  in  Massachusetts, 
and  the  arguments  of  Mr.  Thacher  and  Mr.  Otis  which 
he  had  heard  when  a  young  man  of  twenty-four,  and 
was  again  animated  with  the  spirit  of  his  early  years: 

Otis  [he  remarked]  was  a  flame  of  fire !  With  a  prompti 
tude  of  classical  allusion,  a  depth  of  research,  a  rapid  survey 
of  historical  events  and  dates,  a  profusion  of  legal  authori 
ties,  a  prophetic  glance  of  his  eyes  into  futurity,  and  a  rapid 
torrent  of  eloquence,  he  hurried  away  all  before  him. 
American  independence  was  then  and  there  born.  The 
seeds  of  patriots  and  heroes  to  defend  the  non  sine  diis 
animosus  infans*  were  then  and  there  sown.  Every  man  of 
an  immense  crowded  audience  appeared  to  me  to  go  away, 
as  I  did,  ready  to  take  arms  against  writs  of  assistance. 
Then  and  there  was  the  first  scene  of  the  first  opposition  to 
the  arbitrary  claims  of  Great  Britain. 

John  Adams  summarized  Otis's  speech,  mingling  the 
report  with  his  own  comments.  A  further  digest  of  this 
is  as  follows2: 

1.  Introduction.     Otis  adroitly  "apologizes"  for  resign 
ing  his  office  to  advocate  the  cause  of  the  people. 

2.  Postulate.     Every  man  by  nature  is  an  independent 
sovereign,  with  incontestable  rights  to  life,  liberty,  and 
property.3     These  rights  could  never  be  surrendered  nor 

1  "Spirited  youngling,  not  without  divine  favor."  This  motto  was 
furnished  by  Sir  William  Jones  for  the  "Alliance  Medal,"  struck  in 
Paris  to  commemorate  the  alliance  between  France  and  America  in  1778. 

1  The  unabridged  report  is  found  in  the  complete  works  of  John 
Adams,  edited  by  his  grandson,  Charles  Francis  Adams. 

*  One  of  the  first  expressions,  if  not  the  first,  of  the  postulate  of  the 
Virginia  Bill  of  Rights  (see  Chapter  VI),  and  its  modification  in  the 
postulate  of  the  Declaration  of  Independence. 


12  American  Debate  [1761 

alienated  but  by  idiots  or  madmen.  The  "poor  negroes," 
said  Mr.  Adams,  "were  not  forgotten.  Not  a  Quaker  in 
Philadelphia,  or  Mr.  Jefferson  in  Virginia,  ever  asserted 
the  rights  of  negroes  in  stronger  terms.  Young  .  .  .  and 
ignorant  as  I  was,  I  shuddered  at  the  doctrine  he  taught; 
and  I  have  all  my  life  shuddered  ...  at  the  consequences 
that  may  be  drawn  from  such  premises.  Shall  we  say  that 
the  rights  of  masters  and  servants  clash,  and  can  be  decided 
only  by  force?  I  adore  the  idea  of  gradual  abolitions!  but 
who  shall  decide  how  fast  or  how  slowly  these  abolitions 
shall  be  made?" 

3.  Implication.     Individual    independence,    said    Otis, 
implies  the  right  of  free  association.    Man  is  a  social  animal ; 
individuals  naturally  came  together  for  mutual  aid  and 
defense,  long  before  any  formal  covenant  was  concluded, 
and  when  general  councils  began,  these  must  have  confirmed 
this  purpose,  unless  primitive  men  were  idiots  or  madmen. 
Thus  every  individual's  rights  to  life,  liberty,  and  property 
were  strengthened,   not  surrendered.     Granted  that  our 
ancestors  were  tricked  or  coerced  into  any  other  compact, 
such  fraud  and  such  force  could  confer  no  obligation,  and 
every  man  had  a  right  to  trample  it  under  foot  whenever  he 
pleased. J 

4.  Thesis.     These    principles    and    these    rights    were 
wrought  into  the  English  constitution  as  fundamental  laws. 
Here  he  cited  Magna  Charta,  the  fifty  confirmations  of  it  in 
Parliament,  the  national  vengeance  taken  on  the  violators 
of  the  constitution  down  to  the  Stuart  kings,  the  Bill  of 
Rights,  and  the  Revolution  of  1688.    The  security  of  these 
rights  had  been  the  object  of  all  struggles,  in  every  age, 
against  arbitrary  power — temporal  and  spiritual,  civil  and 
military.     Americans  as  British   subjects  were  therefore 
entitled  to  the  said  rights  by  the  British  constitution  as 
well  as  by  the  laws  of  nature,  and  were  not  to  be  cheated 

1  Compare  the  theory  of  the  "social  contract"  by  Jean  Jacques 
Rousseau,  whose  book  on  the  subject  was  published  in  Amsterdam  in 
the  following  year,  1762. 


1761]  Writs  of  Assistance  13 

out  of  them  by  the  phantom  of  "virtual  representation," 
or  any  other  casuistic  fiction  of  law  or  politics. 

5.  Application.  The  acts  of  trade,  if  they  conflict  with 
natural  rights,  are  unconstitutional,  and  as  such  constitute 
an  invasion  of  the  legal  rights  of  the  British  in  America. 
They  do  so  conflict,  as  Otis  showed  in  detail.  If  considered 
as  revenue  laws  they  destroy  all  our  security  of  property, 
liberty,  and  life,  and  also  violate  the  charter  of  Massachu 
setts.  Here  the  speaker  discussed  the  distinction  between 
"external"  and  "internal"  taxes,  at  that  time,  says  Adams, 
a  popular  and  commonplace  distinction.  Otis  asserted 
there  was  no  such  distinction  in  theory,  or  upon  any 
principle  but  "necessity" — the  need  that  the  commerce  of 
the  Empire1  should  be  under  one  direction  being  obvious. 
The  Americans,  accepting  this  necessity,  had  connived  at 
the  fictitious  distinction,  and  submitted  to  the  acts  of  trade 
as  "regulations  of  commerce,"  but  never  as  taxations  or 
revenue  laws.  Here  Otis  gave  a  history  of  the  navigation 
act  of  1660,  the  first  year  of  Charles  II.,  a  plagiarism  from 
Cromwell.  This  act  lay  dormant  for  fifteen  years;  in  1675, 
after  repeated  orders  from  the  King,  John  Leverett, 
Governor  of  Massachusetts,  candidly  informed  his  Majesty 
that  the  law  had  not  been  executed  because  it  was  thought 
unconstitutional,  Parliament  not  having  authority  over  us. 

In  a  letter  to  Mr.  Tudor,  John  Adams  supplemented 
this  summary  by  saying  that  Mr.  Otis  viewed  the 
"Molasses  Act"  as  a  revenue  act,  and  as  such  declared 
it  to  be  unconstitutional,  being 

a  violation  of  all  the  rights  of  nature,  of  the  English  con 
stitution,  and  of  all  the  charters  and  compacts  with  the 
colonies ;  and,  if  carried  into  execution  by  writs  of  assistance 
and  courts  of  admiralty,  would  destroy  all  security  of  life, 

1  Unless  indicated  otherwise  by  the  connection,  the  word  "empire," 
used  here  and  in  the  following  pages,  implies  only  extensive  domain, 
not  necessarily  under  an  "imperial"  form  of  government. 


14  American  Debate  [1761 

liberty,  and  property;  and  that  this  and  some  other  acts 
could  never  be  executed.  That  the  whole  power  of  Great 
Britain  would  be  insufficient  for  th's  purpose. 

The  text  of  the  preserved  fragments  of  Otis's  speech 
will  be  found  in  volume  one  of  American  Orations  (G.  P. 
Putnam's  Sons).  The  most  striking  passages  in  these 
are  the  following: 

This  writ  of  assistance  .  .  .  appears  to  me  the  worst 
instrument  of  arbitrary  power,  the  most  destructive  of 
English  liberty  and  the  fundamental  principles  of  law,  that 
ever  was  found  in  an  English  law  book. 

In  the  first  place  the  writ  is  universal  ...  it  is  directed 
to  every  subject  in  the  King's  dominions.  Every  one  with 
this  writ  may  be  a  tyrant;  if  this  commission  be  legal,  a 
tyrant  in  a  legal  manner;  also,  may  control,  imprison,  or 
murder  any  one  within  the  realm. 

In  the  next  place  it  is  perpetual;  there  is  no  return.  A 
man  is  accountable  to  no  person  for  his  doings.  Every  man 
may  reign  secure  in  his  petty  tyranny,  and  spread  terror  and 
desolation  around  him  until  the  trump  of  the  archangel 
shall  excite  different  emotions  in  his  soul. 

In  the  third  place,  a  person  with  this  writ  may  enter 
all  houses,  shops,  etc.,  at  will,  and  command  all  to  assist 
him.  .  .  .  Now  one  of  the  most  essential  branches  of 
English  liberty  is  the  freedom  of  one's  house.  A  man's 
house  is  his  castle.  This  writ,  if  it  should  be  declared  legal, 
would  totally  annihilate  this  privilege. 

But  to  show  another  absurdity  in  this  writ :  if  it  should 
be  established,  I  insist  upon  it  every  person,  by  the  I4th 
Charles  Second,  has  this  power  as  well  as  the  custom-house 
officers.  The  words  are:  "it  shall  be  lawful  for  any  person 
or  persons  authorized,"  etc.  What  a  scene  does  this  open! 
Every  man  prompted  by  revenge,  ill-humor,  or  wantonness 
to  inspect  the  inside  of  his  neighbor's  house,  may  get  a  writ 


Writs  of  Assistance  15 

of  assistance.  Others  will  ask  it  from  self-defense ;  one  arbi 
trary  exertion  will  provoke  another,  until  society  be  in 
volved  in  tumult  and  in  blood. 

Justice  Hutchinson,  in  order  to  have  time  to  deliber 
ate  on  the  question  of  granting  the  writ,  postponed  a 
decision  until  the  next  term ;  and  in  the  meantime  wrote 
to  the  British  government  for  information  on  the 
subject.  Writs  were  afterwards  granted,  but  were 
extremely  unpopular.  In  1762  a  bill  passed  the  Massa 
chusetts  Assembly  restraining  the  issuing  of  these  writs, 
except  to  custom-house  officers,  and  then  only  upon 
special  information  on  oath.  But  Governor  Bernard 
refused  his  assent  to  the  bill,  and  the  Assembly  by  way 
of  revenge  reduced  his  salary. 

Writs  of  assistance  were  never  granted  in  Connecti 
cut,  though  the  British  Board  of  Trade,  in  July,  1763, 
in  their  letter  to  the  governor  of  that  colony  on  the 
subject  of  the  navigation  acts,  declared  that  his  Maj 
esty's  resolution  was  so  fixed  "to  have  the  most  implicit 
obedience  to  his  commands  for  enforcing  them  that  he 
would  not  pass  unnoticed  any  negligence  on  the  part 
of  any  person. " 


CHAPTER  II 

THE  STAMP  ACT 
1764-1765 

Autocratic  Policy  of  George  III. — Ministry  of  Bute — Treaty  of  Paris 
— Its  Effect  in  America — Ministry  of  Grenville — It  Proposes 
Revenue  Taxes  on  America— Former  Repudiation  of  these  by 
Walpole  and  Pitt — "Molasses  Act"  Reenforced — Stamp  Act 
Proposed — Boston  Resolutions  against  It,  Drafted  by  Samuel 
Adams — Protests  by  Colonial  Assemblies — Debate  on  Act  in 
the  Commons :  Townshend  vs.  Barre — Sketches  of  the  Debaters — 
Act  Passed — Troops  Quartered  on  Colonies — Debate  on  Stamp 
Act  in  Virginia  House  of  Burgesses :  Patrick  Ilenry  and  Richard 
Henry  Lee  vs.  Peyton  Randolph — Sketches  of  the  Debaters — 
Stamp  Act  Congress — Its  Resolutions  and  Petitions,  Drafted 
by  John  Cruger  [N.  Y.],  William  Samuel  Johnson  [Ct.],  and 
James  Otis  [Mass.] — Sketches  of  Cruger  and  Johnson — Various 
Colonial  Protests — Non-Importation  Agreements — "Sons  of 
Liberty" — Books  against  Act  by  Richard  Bland  [Va.],  Daniel 
Dulany  [Md.],  and  John  Adams  [Mass.] — Sketches  of  Bland  and 
Dulany — Stamp  Act  Riots — Arguments  in  Massachusetts 
against  Act  by  James  Otis,  Jeremiah  Gridley,  and  John  Adams. 

DEVENUE  taxation  soon  became  the  subject  of 
1  ^  controversy  between  Great  Britain  and  America. 
This  was  largely  due  to  the  autocratic  spirit  of  the 
young  King,  George  HI.,  who,  from  the  time  of  his 
accession  (1760),  at  the  age  of  twenty-two,  until  his 
insanity  caused  the  appointment  of  his  son  and  heir  as 
Prince  Regent  (1811),  sought  to  revive  the  prerogatives 
of  the  Crown  as  exercised  by  the  Tudors  and  Stuarts 

16 


[1764-1765]  The  Stamp  Act  17 

before  the  Revolution  of  1688.  To  this  end  he  at 
tempted  to  crush  the  Whigs,  the  civil  rights  party,  by 
encouraging  the  formation  of  "coalition  cabinets"  with 
a  majority  of  Tories,  the  "prerogative  men,"  and 
factional  Whigs — ministers  of  a  subservient  disposition 
and  generally  of  inferior  ability. x  By  this  means  such 
able  Whigs  as  the  elder  Pitt  and  Charles  James  Fox,  to 
whom  could  not  always  be  denied  high  places  in  the 
administration,  were  hampered  in  their  policies  and 
forced  to  resign. 

Ministries  of  Bute  and  Grenville.  In  October,  1761, 
Pitt  resigned  as  Prime  Minister,  owing  to  the  refusal  of 
the  King  and  a  subservient  majority  in  the  government 
to  declare  war  against  Spain;  and  the  King's  favorite, 
John  Stuart,  Earl  of  Bute,  the  Secretary  of  State  for 
the  northern  department,  was  advanced  to  the  head 
of  administration.  Bute  was  greatly  pressed  for  funds 
to  refill  the  treasury  depleted  by  Pitt's  wars,  and  at 
first  attempted  to  secure  these  by  laying  a  tax  on  cider 
in  the  United  Kingdom.  This  proved  to  be  both 

1  The  terms  "Tory"  and  "Whig"  were  first  popularly  and  con 
temptuously  applied  respectively  to  the  upholders  and  opponents  of 
royal  prerogative  in  the  controversy  in  1679  over  excluding  Catholics 
from  the  throne,  "tory  "  originally  signifying  an  Irish  Catholic  outlaw 
who  had  taken  to  the  bogs  and  there  become  a  desperado,  and  "whig," 
a  Scottish  Presbyterian  zealot.  For  various  etymologies  of  the  terms 
see  the  dictionaries.  The  upholders  of  civil  rights  in  America  proudly 
adopted  about  the  time  of  the  Stamp  Act  the  name  of  "American 
Whigs"  to  signify  their  alinement  with  the  upholders  of  civil  rights 
in  Great  Britain.  Thus,  in  1769,  James  Madison,  a  student  in  Prince 
ton,  founded  the  "American  Whig  Society,"  still  in  existence  as  a 
debating  club.  These  "Whigs"  called  the  American  defenders  of 
Parliament's  rule  over  the  colonies  "Tories,"  an  appellation  which 
was  reluctantly  accepted  during  the  struggle  with  Parliament,  and 
repudiated  for  "loyalist"  when  this  contest  developed  into  war  against 
the  Crown.  The  Whigs  then  called  themselves  "patriots,"  a  term 
which  will  be  used  in  these  pages  for  convenience  in  designation. 


1 8  American  Debate  [1764- 

unremunerative  and  unpopular,  and  largely  contrib 
uted  to  Bute's  downfall  in  April,  1763.  George  Gren- 
ville,  as  First  Lord  of  the  Treasury  and  Chancellor  of  the 
Exchequer ,  then  took  charge  of  the  administration .  Not 
daring  to  incur  again  the  resentment  of  the  British 
electors  (for  he  had  been  spokesman  for  the  cider  tax), 
he  looked  to  the  American  colonies,  who  were  without 
representation  in  Parliament,  for  the  needed  addition 
to  the  treasury,  justifying  such  resort  by  the  plea  that 
payment  was  due  from  them  because  of  the  expense 
incurred  by  Great  Britain  in  ridding  them  of  a  powerful 
foe  on  their  northern  border  by  the  Treaty  of  Paris 
concluded  with  France  on  February  10,  1763. 

Treaty  of  Paris.  This  treaty,  ceding  to  Great  Britain 
all  French  possessions  on  the  North  American  continent, 
including  sparsely  settled  Canada  and  the  vast  un 
occupied  territory  between  the  Ohio  and  Mississippi 
rivers,  had  opened  to  the  eyes  of  the  British  colonists  a 
vision  of  a  mighty  empire  for  their  settlement  and 
control.  While  some  of  the  more  prescient  spirits, 
notably  Benjamin  Franklin,  were  hopeful  that  the 
event  would  lead  to  federation  of  the  colonies,  with  an 
increase  of  self-government,  they  had  no  thought  that 
the  united  provinces  would  ever  throw  off  allegiance  to 
the  British  Crown — on  the  contrary  all  the  colonists 
were  filled  with  gratitude  to  the  mother  country  and 
loyalty  to  the  young  King  under  whom  the  conquest 
had  been  accomplished.  Indeed,  they,  who  had  already 
contributed  heavily  in  money  and  men  to  the  conduct 
of  the  war  so  happily  concluded,  were  willing  to  make 
further  payments  to  defray  its  cost,  provided  these  were 
free-will  offerings. 

The  laying  of  internal,  or  revenue  taxes,  as  opposed 
to  external,  or  regulative  taxes,  had  been  suggested  to 


1765]  The  Stamp  Act  19 

the  previous  ministries  of  Walpole  and  Pitt,  but  these 
statesmen  were  too  wise  to  accept  the  proposal.  Said 
Walpole,  "I  will  leave  the  taxation  of  the  Americans 
for  some  of  my  successors,  who  may  have  more  courage 
than  I  have,  and  [may  be]  less  a  friend  to  commerce 
than  I  am."  Pitt  repulsed  the  suggestion  with  charac 
teristic  heat,  saying  that  he  would  not  "burn  his 
fingers"  with  so  impolitic  and  ungenerous  an  act,  fining 
as  it  did  the  colonial  trade  so  profitable  to  Great  Britain, 
and  offending  the  brave  frontier  guard  of  the  Empire, 
who  had  gladly  contributed  more  than  their  share  of 
life  and  treasure  in  extending  it. 

Proposal  of  Stamp  Duties.  Grenville,  however,  had 
not  the  wisdom  of  his  predecessors,  and  in  the  winter  of 
1763-64  gave  notice  to  the  colonial  agents  in  London 
that  in  the  ensuing  session  of  Parliament  he  would 
propose  stamp  duties  in  America  on  publications  and 
legal  instruments.  Soon  after  this  resolutions  were 
passed  in  Commons  continuing  and  making  perpetual 
the  duties  of  the  "Molasses  Act,"  and  adding  other 
articles  to  the  list  of  taxables.  The  expected  revenue 
from  this  act  was  £50,000;  that  from  the  stamp  duties 
proposed  was  £100,000.  The  cost  of  royal  troops 
stationed  and  to  be  stationed  in  America  was  expected 
to  be  £300,000.  So  it  was  deemed  fair  that  the  colo 
nists  should  contribute  at  least  half  this  amount. 

Colonial  Protests.  The  colonists  were  greatly 
alarmed,  particularly  at  the  proposition  to  lay  stamp 
duties,  which  they  regarded  as  the  entering  wedge  of  a 
new  kind  of  taxation,  which  was  unlimited  in  its  possible 
extension,  and  to  the  principle  of  which  they  were 
unalterably  opposed.  The  people  of  Boston,  in  a  town- 
meeting  held  in  May,  1764,  passed  resolutions  of 
protest  (drafted  by  Samuel  Adams)  in  which  they 


2O  American  Debate  [1764- 

inquired:     If  our  trade  may  be  taxed,  why  not  our 
lands,  all  our  products,  everything  we  possess? 

"This,  we  conceive,  annihilates  our  charter  rights  to  govern 
and  tax  ourselves.  It  strikes  at  our  British  privileges,  which, 
as  we  have  never  forfeited,  we  hold  in  common  with  our 
fellow-subjects  who  are  natives  of  Britain." 

They  added  that  such  taxes,  laid  without  their 
consent,  would  reduce  the  colonists  "from  the  character 
of  free  subjects  to  the  state  of  tributary  slaves, "  and 
they  therefore  called  upon  the  people  of  the  other 
provinces  to  join  them  in  protest  against  the  proposed 
duties.  This  was  the  beginning  of  national  American 
union,  and  to  Samuel  Adams  the  credit  is  due  for  first 
enunciating  the  principles  and  program  which  were  to 
make  it  effective.1 

The  Massachusetts  House  of  Representatives  in 
June,  1764,  repeated  the  sentiments  of  the  Boston  town- 
meeting  of  the  preceding  month  in  a  formal  declaration 
and  in  instructions  given  to  the  agent  of  the  province, 
Denny s  Deberdt,  in  London,  and  it  appointed  a 
committee  to  secure  joint  action  of  all  the  colonies  in 
applying  for  a  repeal  of  the  "Molasses  Act"  and  pro 
testing  against  the  contemplated  Stamp  Act.  In  the 
course  of  the  year  petitions  were  sent  by  a  number  of 
the  colonial  assemblies  to  the  King  and  both  houses  of 
Parliament.  That  of  New  York  breathed  the  boldest 
spirit : 

Exemption  from  involuntary  taxes,  it  claimed,  was  the 
grand  principle  of  every  free  state,  a  natural  right  inseparable 
from  the  very  idea  of  property.  Even  conquered  states,  sub 
ject  to  a  fixed  periodical  tribute,  when  they  had  paid  this 

1  For  a  sketch  of  Samuel  Adams  see  Chapter  IV. 


1765]  The  Stamp  Act  21 

were  freed  from  levy  on  the  remainder  of  their  property. 
"With  how  much  propriety  and  boldness, "  therefore,  might 
free  colonists  assert  that  "they  nobly  disdain  the  thought  of 
claiming  that  exemption  as  a  privilege, ' '  especially  when  it 
was  granted  to  his  Majesty's  subjects  at  home,  and  denied 
to  those  abroad  who  had  suffered  "unutterable  hardships" 
in  enlarging  "the  trade,  wealth,  and  dominion"  of  the 
Empire.  The  Assembly  acknowledged  that  Parliament  had 
a  right  to  "regulate"  the  trade  of  the  colonies,  but  claimed 
that  in  so  doing  they  had  no  right  to  impose  duties  for 
revenue.  The  result  of  the  latter  action,  they  said,  striking 
as  it  did  at  "rights  established  in  the  first  dawn  of  our 
constitution"  and  "confirmed  by  invariable  usage,"  would 
dispirit  the  people  and  lead  to  "discord,  poverty,  and 
slavery,"  thus  shaking  the  wealth,  the  power,  and  the 
independence  of  the  most  opulent  empire  in  the  world. 

The  language  of  the  New  York  Assembly  was  so 
audacious  in  its  declaration  of  democratic  rights  that  no 
member  of  Commons  could  be  found  who  was  willing  to 
present  the ' '  petition . "  It  was  probably  drafted  by  John 
Cruger,  later  a  patriotic  leader  as  Mayor  of  New  York 
City,  who  was  a  member  of  the  Assembly  at  the  time. 

Similar,  but  more  conservatively  worded,  opinions 
were  expressed  by  the  other  colonial  assemblies,  some  of 
which  stated  their  willingness  to  grant  aid  to  the  Crown 
whenever  this  should  be  requested  in  a  constitutional 
manner,  the  assemblies  to  judge  as  to  the  amount  of 
these  gifts  and  the  manner  of  granting  them. 

These  protests  were  presented  by  Dr.  Franklin1  and 
other  colonial  agents  in  London  at  a  conference  held 
with  Grenville  in  the  winter  of  1 764-65 .  They  earnestly 

1  Benjamin  Franklin  represented  Pennsylvania  and  other  colonies, 
notably  Massachusetts  (succeeding  Deberdt  as  the  agent  of  this 
province  on  Deberdt 's  death  in  1770),  from  1757  to  1762,  and  from 
1764  to  1775. 


22  American  Debate  [1764- 

ad vised  him  that,  if  money  must  be  drawn  from  the 
colonists,  to  leave  it  to  these  to  raise  it  themselves  in 
such  amount  and  manner  as  they  thought  proper  and 
adapted  to  their  abilities. 

Passage  of  Stamp  Act.  Grenville  nevertheless 
introduced  the  bill  for  the  Stamp  Act  in  the  next 
session  of  Commons.  It  met  with  strong  opposition. 
Pitt  was  absent,  through  sickness,  and  Colonel  Isaac 
Barre  led  the  anti-administration  forces  by  right  of 
eloquence.  Charles  Townshend  and  Grenville1  were  the 
chief  supporters  of  the  bill. 

Isaac  Barre  was  a  native  of  Dublin,  Ireland.  As 
an  officer  under  General  Wolfe  in  Canada  he  became 
sympathetic  with  American  political  ideals,  and  on 
entering  Parliament  espoused  the  colonial  cause.  He 
was  noted  for  his  powers  of  invective;  indeed,  it  was 
asserted  that  he  wrote  the  celebrated  letters  of  Junius, 
but  this  he  denied. 

Charles  Townshend  was  Secretary  of  State  for  War 
under  Mr.  Pitt  in  1761,  and  became  the  First  Lord  of 
Trade  in  1763.  Lord  Macaulay  says  that  he  was  a  man 
of  "splendid  talents,  of  lax  principles,  and  of  boundless 
vanity  and  presumption,  who  would  submit  to  no 
control.  He  had  always  quailed  before  the  genius  and 
the  lofty  character  of  Pitt;  but  when  Pitt  (becoming 
Lord  Chatham)  had  quitted  the  House  of  Commons 
and  seemed  to  have  abdicated  the  part  of  chief  minister, 
Townshend  broke  loose  from  all  restraint." 

Townshend,  in  the  conclusion  of  a  speech  on  Febru 
ary  7,  1765,  exclaimed: 

"And  now  these  Americans,  planted  by  our  care,  nourished 
up  by  our  indulgence,  until  they  are  grown  to  a  degree  of 

1  A  sketch  of  Grenville  will  be  given  in  Chapter  III. 


1765]  The  Stamp  Act  23 

strength  and  importance,  and  protected  by  our  arms — will 
they  grudge  to  contribute  their  mite  to  relieve  us  from  the 
heavy  burden  we  lie  under?" 

With  a  readiness  which  we  commend  as  an  example 
to  debaters  when  called  upon  to  answer  extemporane 
ously  an  opponent,  Colonel  Barre  seized  upon  the  salient 
words  of  Townshend,  which  we  have  italicized,  as  the 
heads  of  his  reply.  With  consummate  irony  he  cried: 
"They  nourished  by  your  indulgence!"  "They  pro 
tected  by  your  arms!"  and  after  each  exclamation  he 
eloquently  and  comprehensively  enumerated  the  facts, 
showing  that  the  opposite  had  been  the  case.  At  the 
close  he  said  in  prophetic  phrase  and  with  admirable 
restraint : 

"And  believe  me  the  same  spirit  of  freedom  which  actu 
ated  that  people  at  first  will  accompany  them  still.  But 
prudence  forbids  me  to  explain  myself  further."1 

The  Government  forces  were  stunned  by  the  speech, 
and  none  of  them  made  reply.  Nevertheless  the  House 
refused  to  receive  the  colonial  petitions  (on  the  ground 
that  it  was  a  standing  rule  not  to  receive  petitions 
against  a  money  bill),  and  passed  the  bill  by  a  vote  of 
250  to  50.  It  was  adopted  by  the  Lords  almost  unani 
mously,  and  received  the  royal  sanction  on  March 

22,  1765. 

It  imposed  duties  on  most  of  the  instruments  used 
in  legal  proceedings  and  commercial  transactions  in  the 
colonies,  on  newspapers,  pamphlets,  almanacs,  etc.,  and 
even  on  degrees  conferred  by  colleges.  The  Government 
declared,  with  paradoxical  logic  founded  on  amazing 

1  The  speech  appears  in  most  collections  of  eloquence  dealing  with 
early  American  history. 


24  American  Debate  [1764- 

psychology,  that  the  act  embraced  so  many  objects 
that  it  would ' '  execute  itself. ' '  Nevertheless  Parliamen  t 
showed  that  it  did  not  have  the  courage  of  its  own 
insolence  by  passing  a  bill  quartering  troops  on  the 
colonies,  and  by  directing  the  assemblies  to  furnish 
them  with  certain  supplies  not  before  required  in  such 
cases.  This  measure,  even  more  than  the  Stamp  Act, 
roused  the  indignation  of  the  colonists. 

Protest  of  Virginia.  The  Virginia  Assembly  was  the 
first  colonial  legislature  to  meet  after  the  news  of  the 
action  of  Parliament  reached  America.  The  leaders  in 
the  popular  branch,  the  House  of  Burgesses,  being  un 
willing  to  take  up  the  delicate  subject,  about  May  1st 
Patrick  Henry,  who,  though  reputed  the  most  eloquent 
speaker  in  the  colony,  had  hitherto  taken  "  a  back  seat " 
in  the  House,  introduced  it  in  the  form  of  strongly 
condemnatory  resolutions. 

Sketch  of  Henry.  Henry  had  been  an  idler  in  boy 
hood,  and  a  failure,  first  as  a  merchant  and  then  as  a 
farmer,  in  early  manhood.  Then  at  the  age  of  twenty- 
four,  with  only  six  weeks'  preparation,  he  was  admitted 
to  the  bar  by  the  brothers  Peyton  and  John  Randolph 
overcoming  the  adverse  decision  of  their  fellow  law- 
examiners  by  pleading  the  applicant's  evident  ability 
as  making  up  for  his  lack  of  legal  knowledge.  His 
practice  for  the  first  three  or  four  years  was  so  meager 
that  he  was  forced  to  support  himself  by  serving  as  a 
waiter  in  his  father-in-law's  tavern.  However,  in  1763, 
by  the  influence  probably  of  Lee  and  the  Randolphs, 
he  secured  representation  of  the  House  of  Burgesses  in 
a  test  case  in  Henry's  county  of  Hanover  against  the 
clergy  over  the  stipend  of  the  latter.  William  Wirt,  his 
biographer,  has  vividly  depicted  the  effect  of  Henry's 
speech  on  his  audience,  the  jury,  and  the  court : 


1765]  The  Stamp  Act  25 

"On  this  first  trial  of  his  strength  he  rose  very  awkwardly, 
and  faltered  much  in  his  exordium.  The  people  hung  their 
heads  at  so  unpromising  a  commencement ;  the  clergy  were 
observed  to  exchange  sly  looks  with  each  other;  and  his 
father  is  described  as  having  almost  sunk  with  confusion 
from  his  seat.  But  these  feelings  were  of  short  duration,  and 
soon  gave  place  to  others  of  a  very  different  character. 
For  now  were  those  wonderful  faculties  which  he  possessed 
for  the  first  time  developed;  and  now  was  first  witnessed 
that  mysterious  and  almost  supernatural  transformation  of 
appearance  which  the  fire  of  his  own  eloquence  never  failed 
to  work  in  him.  For,  as  his  mind  rolled  along  and  began  to 
glow  from  its  own  action,  all  the  exuvitz  of  the  clown  seemed 
to  shed  themselves  spontaneously.  His  attitude  by  degrees 
became  erect  and  lofty.  The  spirit  of  his  genius  awakened 
all  his  features.  His  countenance  shone  with  a  nobleness 
and  grandeur  which  it  had  never  before  exhibited.  There 
was  a  lightning  in  his  eyes  which  seemed  to  rive  the  specta 
tor.  His  action  became  graceful,  bold,  and  commanding; 
and  in  the  tones  of  his  voice,  but  more  especially  in  his 
emphasis,  there  was  a  peculiar  charm,  a  magic,  of  which 
anyone  who  ever  heard  him  will  speak  as  soon  as  he  is 
named,  but  of  which  no  one  can  give  any  adequate  descrip 
tion.  They  can  only  say  that  it  struck  upon  the  ear  and 
upon  the  heart,  in  a  manner  which  language  cannot  tell. 
Add  to  all  these  his  wonder-working  fancy,  and  the  peculiar 
phraseology  in  which  he  clothed  its  images;  for  he  painted 
to  the  heart  with  a  force  that  almost  petrified  it.  In  the 
language  of  those  who  heard  him  on  this  occasion,  'he 
made  their  blood  run  cold,  and  their  hair  to  rise  on  end.' 
The  mockery  of  the  clergy  was  soon  turned  into  alarm; 
their  triumph  into  confusion  and  despair;  and  at  one  burst 
of  his  rapid  and  overwhelming  invective  they  fled  from  the 
bench  in  precipitation  and  terror.  As  for  the  father,  such 
was  his  surprise,  such  his  amazement,  such  his  rapture,  that, 
forgetting  where  he  was,  and  the  character  which  he  was 
filling,  tears  of  ecstacy  streamed  down  his  cheeks,  without 


26  American  Debate  1*764- 

the  power  or  inclination  to  repress  them.  The  jury  seem  to 
have  been  completely  bewildered;  for,  thoughtless  even  of 
the  admitted  right  of  the  plaintiff,  they  had  scarcely  left 
the  bar  when  they  returned  with  a  verdict  of  one  penny 
damages.  A  motion  was  made  for  a  new  trial;  but  the 
court,  too,  had  now  lost  the  equipoise  of  their  judgment,  and 
overruled  the  motion  by  a  unanimous  vote.  The  verdict 
and  judgment  overruling  the  motion  were  followed  by 
redoubled  acclamations  from  within  and  without  the  house. 
The  people,  who  had  with  difficulty  kept  their  hands  off 
their  champion  from  the  moment  of  closing  his  harangue, 
no  sooner  saw  the  fate  of  the  cause  finally  sealed  than  they 
seized  him  at  the  bar,  and,  in  spite  of  his  own  exertions,  and 
the  continued  cry  of  'Order!'  from  the  sheriffs  and  the 
court,  they  bore  him  out  of  the  court-house,  and,  raising 
him  on  their  shoulders,  carried  him  about  the  yard  in  a 
kind  of  electioneering  triumph." 

The  resolutions  of  Henry  on  the  Stamp  Act  recited 
that: 

The  two  charters  granted  to  Virginia  by  James  I.  declared 
the  colonists  of  that  province  entitled  to  all  the  rights 
enjoyed  by  the  inhabitants  of  England;  asserted  that 
representation  in  the  taxing  power  by  the  taxed  was  an 
intrinsic  element  in  the  British  constitution,  and  that  self- 
government  in  regard  to  taxes  and  internal  police  had  thus 
far  been  exercised  by  Virginia,  and  recognized  by  the  British 
government,  and  had  never  been  forfeited;  and  that  there 
fore  (i)  every  attempt  to  vest  the  taxing  power  on  Virginia 
in  other  persons  than  the  Assembly  of  the  province  had  a 
tendency  to  destroy  British  as  well  as  American  freedom; 
(2)  that  laws  to  this  effect  did  not  bind  Virginians;  and  (3) 
that  any  person  who  maintained  that  they  did  should 
"be  deemed  an  enemy  to  this  his  Majesty's  colony." 

The  resolutions  ending  with  the  first  conclusion  were 
adopted,  and  the  two  last  conclusions  were  rejected, 


1765]  The  Stamp  Act  27 

after  what  was  denominated  by  one  present  "a  most 
bloody  debate."  Henry  in  his  argument  premised 
that  any  act  imposing  internal  duties  on  the  colonists 
was  tyrannical,  and  he  did  not  hesitate  to  press  home 
the  logical  conclusion  that  the  present  King  was  acting 
the  part  of  a  tyrant,  at  which  bold  deduction  the  con 
servative  assemblymen  were  greatly  agitated.  Then, 
alluding  to  the  fate  of  other  tyrants,  he  cried:  "Caesar 
had  his  Brutus,  Charles  I.  his  Cromwell,  and  George 
III." — whereupon  he  was  interrupted  by  the  Speaker 
of  the  House  and  others  with  the  cry  of  "Treason!" 
Henry  paused,  looked  at  the  Speaker,  and  deliberately 
concluded — "may  profit  by  their  example.  If  this  be 
treason,  make  the  most  of  it." 

Henry  was  supported  by  George  Johnson,  an  able 
constitutional  lawyer,  who  seconded  the  resolutions, 
and  by  Richard  Henry  Lee.  Says  a  writer  of  the  time : 
"People  knew  not  which  most  to  admire:  the  over 
whelming  might  of  Henry,  or  the  resistless  persuasion  of 
Lee." 

Sketch  of  Lee.  Lee  was  a  man  of  unusual  attain 
ments,  and  yet  of  great  modesty.  He  was  learned  in 
classical  literature,  especially  of  the  ancient  republics. 
In  1757  he  entered  the  House  of  Burgesses,  where  for  a 
time  he  refrained  from  debate,  devoting  his  time  to  a 
study  of  legislation  and  parliamentary  procedure.  One 
day,  however,  the  subject  arose  of  the  suppression  of  the 
slave  trade  by  heavy  taxation,  and  he  supported  the 
proposition  in  a  speech  part  of  which  has  fortunately 
been  preserved,  and  which  remains  the  most  eloquent 
of  the  early  denunciations  of  slavery.  Although  the 
motion  was  defeated  Mr.  Lee's  speech  won  for  him  the 
praise  of  the  best  men  of  the  colony. 

He   was   also   bold   against   individual   corruption, 


28  American  Debate  [1764- 

exposing  frauds  committed  by  the  colonial  treasurer,  a 
man  of  great  wealth  and  political  power  as  well  as  the 
Speaker  of  the  House  before  which  the  denunciation 
was  made. 

After  the  Revolution,  Lee  served  in  the  Virginia 
Assembly,  frequently  opposing  Patrick  Henry  on 
important  bills.  An  auditor  of  these  debates  thus 
characterizes  the  opposing  styles  of  the  two  orators. 

"These  two  gentlemen  were  the  great  leaders  of  the  House 
of  Delegates,  and  were  almost  constantly  opposed.  There 
were  many  other  great  men  who  belonged  to  that  body, 
but  as  orators  they  cannot  be  named  with  Henry  or  Lee. 
Mr.  Lee  was  a  polished  gentleman.  He  had  lost  the  use  of 
one  of  his  hands,  but  his  manner  was  perfectly  graceful. 
His  language  was  always  chaste,  and,  although  somewhat 
too  monotonous,  his  speeches  were  always  pleasing,  yet  he 
did  not  ravish  your  senses  or  carry  away  your  judgment  by 
storm.  His  was  the  mediate  class  of  eloquence  described 
by  Rollin  in  his  Belles  Lettres.  He  was  like  a  beautiful 
river  meandering  through  a  flowery  mead,  but  which  never 
overflowed  its  banks.  It  was  Henry  who  was  the  mountain 
torrent,  that  swept  away  everything  before  it;  it  was  he 
alone  who  thundered  and  lightened,  he  alone  [who]  attained 
that  sublime  species  of  eloquence  also  mentioned  by  Rollin." 

Peyton  Randolph  was  chief  of  the  opponents  of 
Patrick  Henry's  Stamp  Act  resolutions,  feeling  that  they 
were  precipitate  and,  by  angering  Parliament,  would 
cause  it  to  deprive  the  colonies  of  still  more  of  their 
liberties.  Thomas  Jefferson  reported  that,  as  the 
delegates  were  leaving  the  hall,  he  heard  Randolph  say, 
referring  to  the  fact  that  the  most  objectionable  of  the 
resolutions,  the  two  last,  were  carried  by  a  majority  of 
one,  "  By  God,  I  would  have  given  five  hundred  pounds 
for  a  single  vote!" 


1765]  The  Stamp  Act  29 

Sketch  of  Randolph.  Peyton  Randolph  at  this  time 
was  the  most  noted  lawyer  in  Virginia.  As  King's 
Attorney  for  Virginia  he  resisted  Governor  Robert 
Dinwiddie's  demand  of  fees  on  land  patents,  going  to 
England  and  successfully  maintaining  the  unconstitu 
tionally  of  the  exaction  against  the  crown  lawyers,  one 
of  whom,  William  Murray,  afterwards  became  Lord 
Mansfield  and  the  Chief -Justice  of  England.  Randolph 
later  served  as  chairman  of  the  committee  to  revise  the 
laws  of  Virginia. 

Peyton  Randolph  was  a  man  of  fine  and  winning 
character.  Jefferson,  early  in  life,  took  him  for  a  model, 
asking  himself  in  a  crisis  how  Randolph  would  act. 
He  became  the  president  of  the  First  Continental 
Congress,  and  this  preeminence,  conjoined  with  his 
noble  presence,  gracious  manners,  and  calm,  judicial 
temper,  caused  him,  first  of  our  statesmen,  to  receive 
the  appellation  of  "  Father  of  His  Country, "  this  being 
given  him  by  the  Gentlemen's  Magazine  of  July  I, 
1775.  He  died  of  apoplexy  in  October,  1775. 

On  the  day  following  the  adoption  of  Henry's  resolu 
tions,  on  motion  of  some  of  the  majority  who  were 
fearful  of  the  consequences,  the  last  two  resolutions 
were  reconsidered,  and  were  finally  stricken  out. 

The  resolutions  of  Virginia  aroused  the  other  colonies 
to  action,  and  a  Stamp  Act  Congress  was  appointed  to 
be  held  at  New  York  City  on  the  first  Tuesday  of 
October,  1765. 

Stamp  Act  Congress.  Delegates  from  nine  colonies 
assembled  at  the  place  and  time  appointed.  "  Brigadier " 
Timothy  Ruggles,  a  native  of  Rochester,  Mass.,  the 
most  distinguished  living  colonial  soldier  of  the  French 
War,  and  one  of  the  best  lawyers  in  his  colony,  was 
chosen  president.  He  was  a  man  of  fine  presence,  being 


30  American  Debate  [1764- 

six  feet  and  a  half  in  height,  and  of  superior  education, 
having  been  graduated  from  Harvard  in  1732.  Loyal 
to  the  Crown  for  which  he  had  fought,  he  refused  to 
sign  the  proceedings  of  the  Congress,  and  thereafter 
sided  with  Parliament.  He  left  the  country  for  Nova 
Scotia  with  the  British  troops  on  the  evacuation  of 
Boston,  suffering  the  confiscation  of  his  considerable 
property.  Only  one  other  delegate,  Robert  Ogden,  of 
New  Jersey,  stood  with  the  stalwart  soldier. 

The  Congress  was  organized  on  the  principle  that 
each  colony  should  have  "one  voice"  in  the  voting — • 
a  most  important  decision  in  that  it  established  a 
precedent  for  the  equal  representation  of  States  in 
Congress  which  continued  down  to  the  establishment  of 
the  Constitution  in  1789,  and  even  now  prevails  in  the 
Senate.  The  delegates,  on  October  8,  then  took  up 
consideration  of  the  issue  for  which  they  were  assem 
bled.  The  subject  was  debated  until  October  19,  when 
a  declaration  of  the  "rights  and  grievances"  of  the 
colonies  was  framed  and  adopted.  It  recited  the  argu 
ment  against  the  Stamp  Act  with  which  the  reader  is 
already  familiar,  and  in  addition  it  maintained  that 
the  overriding  by  the  act  of  trial  by  jury  by  extension 
of  admiralty  jurisdiction  was  a  subversion  of  "the 
inherent  and  invaluable  right  of  every  British  subject 
in  the  colonies."  The  declaration  was  framed  by  dele 
gate  John  Cruger,  Mayor  of  New  York  City. 

Cruger  afterwards  became  a  member  of  the  inter 
colonial  committee  of  correspondence.  In  1775  he 
became  Speaker  of  the  New  York  Assembly,  and,  early 
in  that  year,  with  thirteen  other  members,  addressed  a 
letter  to  General  Gage,  commander  of  the  royal  troops 
in  America,  asking  that  "no  military  force  might  land 
or  be  stationed  in  the  province." 


1765]  The  Stamp  Act  31 

The  Congress  then  adopted  an  Address  to  the  King 
and  a  Petition  to  Parliament  for  repeal  of  the  act. 
These  papers  enforced  the  arguments  of  the  Declaration 
of  Rights  and  Grievances,  the  Address  in  respect 
ful  and  appealing  tone,  and  the  Petition  for  repeal  by 
detailing  the  injuries  which  the  act  would  inflict 
primarily  on  the  business  of  the  colonies,  and  secondarily 
on  that  of  the  British  merchants  and  manufacturers 
engaged  in  colonial  trade. 

The  Address  to  the  King  was  drafted  principally  by 
William  Samuel  Johnson,  of  Connecticut,  one  of  the 
ablest  lawyers  and  most  accomplished  scholars  in 
America.  He  successfully  defended  in  England  Con 
necticut's  title  to  territory  which  had  been  the  property 
of  the  Mohegan  Indians,  and  while  in  London  he  formed 
the  acquaintance  of  leading  authors,  including  Dr. 
Samuel  Johnson,  with  whom  he  corresponded  after  his 
return  home.  Perhaps  it  was  the  influence  of  this  au 
thor  of  Taxation  No  Tyranny  that  caused  the  Ameri 
can  Johnson  to  retire  from  Congress  shortly  before  the 
signing  of  the  Declaration  of  Independence,  which  he 
could  not  conscientiously  support,  and  to  take  no  part 
in  politics  during  the  remainder  of  the  Revolution. 

Judge  Johnson  (he  was  a  member  of  the  Superior 
Court  of  Connecticut  in  1772)  received  from  Oxford  the 
degree  of  D.C.L.,  largely  because  of  his  able  conduct  of 
the  Mohegan  case,  and  from  Yale  the  degree  of  LL.D., 
the  first  granted  by  that  institution.  He  was  esteemed 
a  finished  orator,  his  eloquent  diction  being  supple 
mented  by  a  noble  presence,  and  a  clear,  ringing,  and 
well-modulated  voice. 

The  most  prominent  member  of  the  committee  to 
frame  the  Petition  to  the  King  of  the  Stamp  Act 
Congress  was  James  Otis,  of  Massachusetts,  and  it  was 


32  American  Debate  [1764- 

probably  the  work  of  his  pen.  Caesar  Rodney,  a  dele 
gate  to  the  Congress  from  Delaware,  subsequently 
wrote  on  the  margin  of  a  copy  of  the  History  of  the 
American  Revolution,  by  David  Ramsay: 

"The  historian  passes  by  this  Congress  in  a  very  light 
manner.  It  was  this  Congress  in  which  James  Otis,  of 
Boston,  displayed  that  light  and  knowledge  of  America 
which,  shining  like  a  sun,  lit  up  those  stars  which  shone  on 
this  subject  afterward." 

Yet  Otis,  soon  after  the  passage  of  the  Stamp  Act, 
had  declared: 

"  It  is  the  duty  of  all  humbly  and  silently  to  acquiesce  in 
all  the  decisions  of  the  supreme  legislature.  Nine  hundred 
and  ninety-nine  in  a  thousand  will  never  entertain  the 
thought  but  of  submission  to  our  sovereign,  and  to  the 
authority  of  Parliament  in  all  possible  contingencies." 

If  consistency  and  prescience  be  the  marks  of  a  great 
statesman  this  eminence  must  surely  be  denied  James 
Otis.  It  was  well  for  the  cause  of  American  independ 
ence  that  this  erratic  mind  entirely  lost  its  balance  in 
insanity,  since  Otis's  personal  magnetism,  equal  to 
that  of  Patrick  Henry,  would  have  kept  him  in  the  fore 
of  affairs. 

The  Address  and  Petition  were  approved,  as  has  been 
noted,  by  all  the  delegates  save  two,  but,  owing  to 
limitations  in  their  instructions,  those  of  three  of  the 
nine  colonies  represented,  Connecticut,  New  York,  and 
South  Carolina,  did  not  sign  the  documents.  However, 
the  proceedings  were  subsequently  ratified  by  the 
assemblies  of  these  colonies  as  well  as  by  the  assemblies 
of  the  four  colonies  unrepresented  in  the  Congress. 


1765]  The  Stamp  Act  33 

Some  of  the  assemblies  also  gave  confirmatory  instruc 
tions  to  their  agents  in  London. 

Agitation  against  the  Act.  Samuel  Adams  did  not 
attend  the  Stamp  Act  Congress.  He  was  busy  in 
Massachusetts  preparing  resolutions  for  the  House  of 
Representatives,  one  set  against  a  declaration  of  Gov 
ernor  Bernard  that  Parliament  was  supreme  over  the 
colonies,  and  another,  known  to  fame  as  the  "Massa 
chusetts  Resolves,"  expressing  the  determination  of 
the  House  to  refuse  assistance  to  the  execution  of  the 
Stamp  Act.  Adams,  by  his  indefatigable  correspond 
ence,  had  generated  the  popular  sentiment  which  gave 
the  House  courage  to  make  the  latter  bold  declaration. 
Inspired  by  him  town-meetings  all  over  Massachusetts 
passed  resolutions  condemning  the  Stamp  Act  and 
instructing  their  delegates  in  the  House  to  vote  for  the 
''Resolves."  The  instructions  of  their  representative 
by  the  citizens  of  Plymouth,  the  descendants  of  the 
Pilgrims  who  first  settled  New  England,  are  typical. 
They  close  with  the  significant  recommendation:  "We 
think  it  by  no  means  advisable  for  you  to  interest  your 
self  in  the  protection  of  stamp  papers  or  stamp  officials." 

The  citizen  meetings  outside  of  New  England  passed 
cruder  resolutions,  in  which  nothing  like  the  "fine 
Italian  hand"  of  Sam  Adams  appeared.  Thus  the 
assembled  freemen  of  Essex  County,  New  Jersey, 
declared  a  social  boycott  against  every  "stamp-pimp, 
informer,  and  encourager  of  the  execution  of  said  act, " 
by  resolving  to  have  no  communication  with  such 
persons,  "unless  it  be  to  inform  them  of  their  vileness." 

The  merchants  of  New  York,  Philadelphia,  and  Bos 
ton  entered  into  associations  agreeing  to  import  no 
goods  from  Great  Britain  unless  the  Stamp  Act  should 
be  repealed.  This  is  of  historical  importance  in  that  it 


34  American  Debate  [1764- 

was  the  first  use  in  America  of  the  principle  of  the 
embargo,  which  was  to  play  a  leading  part  in  our 
country's  early  resistance  to  foreign  aggression,  though 
an  ineffectual  one,  since  by  its  nature  an  embargo 
inevitably  injures  the  parties  concerned  in  the  ratio  of 
their  commercial  strengths,  and  young  America,  which 
thought  itself  too  weak  to  oppose  by  arms  British 
"orders  in  council"  and  French  decrees,  discovered  in 
the  end  that  it  was  at  even  greater  disadvantage  in  the 
conduct  of  a  trade  war. x 

John  Adams,  afterwards  as  President  to  enforce 
peace  with  France  by  a  show  of  war,  was  the  first 
American  statesman  to  realize  the  impotence  of  non 
importation  agreements,  scouting  them  when  they 
were  later  proposed  in  the  Continental  Congress,  and 
pointing  to  their  failure  in  the  case  of  the  Stamp  Act, 
for  it  was  not  they,  but  the  spirit  of  forcible  resistance 
manifested  by  the  colonists,  which  caused  Parliament 
to  repeal  the  measure. 

This  spirit  was  seen  in  the  organization  in  New  York 
and  Connecticut  of  the  "Sons  of  Liberty,"  to  prevent 
by  force  the  execution  of  the  act.  Their  manifesto 
repeated  the  familiar  arguments  against  the  act  as  a 
tyrannical  measure  and  declared  that  the  "Sons"  would 
use  the  "utmost  of  their  power"  to  bring  to  "the  most 
condign  punishment"  as  "betrayers  of  their  country" 
all  persons  concerned  in  its  enforcement,  and  would 
also  "defend  the  liberty  of  the  press"  by  protecting 
editors  and  other  writers  from  punishment  on  account 
of  their  utterances  against  the  act. 

Newspaper  editors,  pamphleteers,  and  authors  of 
books  did  not  require  the  protection  of  the  "Sons  of 

1  The  student  of  economics  may  apply  this  principle  also  to  retalia 
tory  tariffs. 


1765]  The  Stamp  Act  35 

Liberty"  in  opposing  the  act.  The  editors  printed  a 
death's-head  on  the  space  where  the  stamp  was  to  be 
affixed,  and  underneath  it  denounced  the  measure. 

This  association  was  extended  to  other  colonies  and 
promised  to  spread  through  the  entire  country,  when 
its  purpose  was  rendered  unnecessary  by  repeal  of  the 
odious  measure.  It  was  revived  when  the  contest  with 
Great  Britain  arose  over  the  "  Townshend  Taxes." 

American  legal  and  political  literature  dates  from  the 
period  of  the  Writs  of  Assistance  and  the  Stamp  Act. 
Before  these  measures  books  written  in  the  colonies 
had  been  almost  entirely  of  a  theological  nature, 
preparatory,  however,  to  political  treatises,  since 
"obedience  to  God"  dictated  the  spirit  of  "resistance 
to  tyrants."  Now  the  latter  was  exalted  to  a  sacred 
duty,  and  admirable  books  were  written  on  the  burn 
ing  subject  which  were  far  more  eagerly  devoured  in 
America  than  the  published  sermons  and  religious 
treatises  of  the  Mathers  and  Jonathan  Edwards,  de 
picting  a  conflagration  which,  however  terrific  in  con 
templation,  dealt  not  with  present  life,  and  so  could  be 
postponed  in  consideration  to  a  more  convenient  season. 
Indeed,  these  political  works  were,  first  of  American 
books,  widely  read  in  Great  Britain,  where  they  won 
the  admiration  of  the  Whigs  and  the  respect  of  the 
Tories. 

The  most  notable  of  such  productions  were,  An 
Inquiry  into  the  Rights  of  the  British  Colonies  (1766), 
by  Richard  Bland,  of  Virginia;  Considerations  on  the 
Propriety  of  Imposing  Taxes  on  the  British  Colonies^ 
for  the  Purpose  of  Raising  a  Revenue  by  Act  of  Parlia 
ment  (1766),  by  Daniel  Dulany,  of  Maryland;  and  an 
Essay  on  the  Canon  and  Feudal  Law  (printed  in  the 
Boston  Gazette  in  1765  and  republished  in  book  form  in 


36  American  Debate  (1764- 

London  in  1768),  by  John  Adams,  then  a  young  lawyer 
of  Braintree,  Massachusetts.1 

Bland  and  Dulany  were  recognized  as  among  the 
ablest  lawyers  and  publicists  of  America.  Bland's  book 
was  the  first  complete  survey  of  colonial  rights. 

Richard  Bland  subsequently  signed  the  non-importa 
tion  agreement  of  1769,  and  was  a  member  of  the  inter 
colonial  Committee  of  Correspondence  in  1773.  He 
opposed  Patrick  Henry's  militant  resolutions  of  1775. 
From  his  extensive  knowledge  of  the  affairs  of  his  colony 
he  was  known  as  "the  Virginia  Antiquary." 

Dulany's  book  not  only  proved  the  illegality  of  the 
Stamp  Act,  and  prophesied  the  evils  which  would  result 
from  Parliamentary  restrictions  of  colonial  trade,  but 
recommended  as  a  practical  remedy  therefor  the 
development  of  home  industries.  Dulany's  eloquent 
appeal  to  the  colonists  to  use  home-made  articles,  crude 
and  coarse  as  these  were,  in  preference  to  foreign 
manufactures,  is  the  first  American  classic  on  the 
subject,  and  applicable  to  the  question  of  the  tariff 
to-day,  not  as  a  permanent  institution  but  as  a  tempo 
rary  expedient,  for  Dulany  admitted  that  "in  theory 
.  .  .  each  [Europe  and  America]  is  equally  important  to 
the  other ;  that  all  partake  of  the  adversity  and  depres 
sion  of  any." 

Dulany  had  already,  however,  indicated  the  spirit 
of  conservatism  by  opposing  in  the  Maryland  As 
sembly  reduction  of  provincial  taxes,  advocated  by 
Charles  Carroll,  and,  when  the  question  of  casting 
off  allegiance  to  the  British  Crown  arose,  he  took 

1  Educated  by  his  parents  at  Harvard  with  the  view  that  he  should 
become  a  minister,  Adams  on  graduation  declared  himself  too  liberal 
in  his  opinions  for  the  pulpit,  and  so,  asking  no  assistance,  he  studied 
law,  supporting  himself  while  doing  so  by  teaching  school.  For  a 
character  sketch  of  John  Adams  see  Chapter  VI. 


1765]  The  Stamp  Act  37 

his    stand   with   the   loyalists,  and    saw   his   estates 
confiscated. 

John  Adams  wrote  with  even  greater  eloquence  than 
Dulany,  despite  the  formal  legal  title  of  his  book. 

He  appeals  to  his  compatriots  to  defend  their  "  blood- 
bought  liberty. "  He  decries  the  use  of  the  phrase  "mother 
countries  and  children  colonies,"  asking,  "Are  we  not 
brethren  and  fellow-subjects  with  those  in  Britain?"  He 
invokes  the  pulpit  to  support  the  colonial  cause  as  that 
of  freedom,  involving  religious  liberty;  he  summons  the 
bar  to  proclaim  the  natural  right  of  civil  liberty  the  recogni 
tion  of  which  was  wrung  by  the  British  people  from  their 
lords.  Another  encroachment  on  this  liberty,  such  as  was 
made  by  James  I.  and  Charles  L,  which  "produced  the 
greatest  number  of  statesmen  ever  seen  in  any  age  or 
nation, "  he  says  is  imminent,  and  he  calls  upon  the  colonial 
lawyers  to  combat  it.  "The  [enslaving]  canon  and  feudal 
laws,"  he  says,  "though  greatly  mutilated  in  England,  are 
not  yet  destroyed."  It  is  America's  duty  to  resist  their 
application  to  the  colonists  in  the  Stamp  Act,  not  only  for 
their  own  sake  but  for  the  sake  of  all  Britons  and  of  the 
world. 

Stamp  Act  Riots.  In  justification  of  their  acts 
against  public  order  the  militant  woman  suffragists  'of 
Great  Britain  claim  that  a  British  Government  is  not 
moved  to  grant  justice  by  argument  but  by  force. 
Unfortunately  for  peaceful  reform  in  Great  Britain 
they  can  cite  instances  of  this.  Among  these  is  the 
repeal  of  the  Stamp  Act.  Not  to  the  petitions  of  the 
colonial  assemblies  nor  to  the  logic  of  the  colonial 
pamphleteers  did  the  British  ministry  yield,  but  to  the 
riots,  especially  in  Boston,  against  the  Stamp  Act 
officers  and  the  public  officials  supporting  these.  A 


38  American  Debate  [1764- 

Boston  mob  raided  the  house  of  Chief -Justice  Thomas 
Hutchinson,  already  unpopular  because  of  his  enforce 
ment  of  the  "Molasses  Act,"  and  destroyed  his  furni 
ture,  pictures,  and  valuable  books  and  manuscripts. 
The  houses  of  revenue  officers,  including  that  of  Hutch- 
inson's  brother-in-law,  Andrew  Oliver,  distributor  of 
the  stamps,  were  also  injured.  Others  concerned  with 
the  enforcement  of  the  act  were  compelled  by  threats 
to  resign.  Consequently,  on  the  day  set  for  the  act  to 
take  effect,  November  I,  1765,  neither  stamps  nor 
stamp  officers  were  to  be  found  in  the  colonies  except  in 
Georgia,  which,  being  the  remotest  and  most  recently 
settled  province — and  that  by  emigrants  sent  out  by 
governmental  direction — had  the  least  unity  of  patriotic 
spirit.  The  courts  were  closed  for  a  time,  vessels  were 
held  in  American  ports,  and  commercial  transactions  in 
general  were  interrupted.  However,  by  general  consent, 
business  shortly  was  resumed  without  the  use  of  stamped 
paper.  The  better  class  of  people  reprobated  the  acts 
of  violence,  but  afterwards  welcomed  the  state  of 
affairs  which  resulted  from  them. 

Legal  Protest  against  the  Act.  On  December  18, 
1765,  a  town-meeting  in  Boston  petitioned  the  Governor 
and  Council  to  remove  the  obstructions  against  business 
created  by  the  Stamp  Act,  and  appointed  James  Otis, 
Jeremiah  Gridley,  and  John  Adams  to  argue  the  case 
before  these  authorities.  The  hearing  was  held  on 
December  20. 

As  stated  many  years  afterwards  by  John  Quincy 
Adams,  his  father  took  a  bolder  position  than  that  of  his 
associates. 

"Mr.  Otis  reasoned  with  great  learning  and  zeal  on  the 
judges'  oaths,  etc. ;  Mr.  Gridley  on  the  great  inconveniences 


1765]  The  Stamp  Act  39 

that  would  ensue  the  interruption  of  justice,  .  .  .  Mr. 
Adams  grounded  his  argument  on  the  invalidity  of  the  Stamp 
Act,  it  not  being  in  any  sense  our  Act,  [we]  having  never 
consented  to  it." 

The  petition  was,  of  course,  denied. 


CHAPTER  III 

SUPREMACY  OF  PARLIAMENT 
1766 

Debate  in  the  Commons  on  the  Right  to  Tax  America:  Grenville  vs.  Pitt 
— Sketches  of  the  Debaters — Debate  in  the  Commons  on  the 
Supremacy  of  Parliament :  Con  way  vs.  Barre — Sketch  of  Conway — 
Examination  of  Benjamin  Franklin — Sketch  of  Franklin — Debate 
in  the  Lords  on  Supremacy  of  Parliament :  Mansfield  vs.  Camden — 
Sketches  of  the  Debaters— Doctrine  Since  Maintained  in  Great 
Britain — Change  of  American  View  of  the  Subject — James  Otis  et 
al.  on  Practicability  of  American  Representation  in  Parliament. 

IN  the  meantime  there  had  come  a  change  in  the 
British  administration,  largely  owing  to  its  ineffec 
tual  taxing  policy.  In  July,  1765,  the  Marquess  of 
Rockingham  (Charles  Watson  Wentworth)  became 
Prime-Minister  with  General  Henry  Seymour  Conway 
and  the  Duke  of  Grafton  (Augustus  Henry  Fitzroy)  as 
his  Secretaries  of  State.  The  cabinet  was  divided  by 
intestine  quarrels,  and  Pitt  refused  to  have  anything 
to  do  with  it.  Knowing  its  weakness  the  ministry  was 
intimidated  by  the  American  opposition  to  the  Stamp 
Act,  strengthened  as  this  was  by  the  clamors  of  British 
merchants  and  manufacturers  against  the  measure, 
which  before  its  enactment  had  caused  a  serious  dimi 
nution  in  American  trade. 

The  debates  which  ensued  on  the  question  were  the 

40 


[1766]  Supremacy  of  Parliament  41 

most  important  that  arose  in  England  in  the  century, 
being  the  first  serious  discussion  in  Parliament  since 
the  Revolution  of  1688  on  the  nature  of  the  English 
constitution.  Owing  to  this  breadth,  they  more  pro 
perly  belong  to  the  subject  of  "British  Debate,"  and 
so  we  shall  give  here  only  a  summary  of  the  positions 
taken  by  the  debaters  which  are  applicable  to  the 
controversy  between  Great  Britain  and  America.1 

Repeal  of  Stamp  Act.  The  question  of  repeal  of  the 
Stamp  Act  was  brought  before  Parliament  on  January 
14,  1766,  by  submission  of  reports  from  America  show 
ing  that  the  measure  was  incapable  of  execution.  On 
that  day  occurred  the  great  debate  between  Grenville 
and  Pitt  on  "The  Right  to  Tax  America." 

George  Grenville  had  entered  Parliament  in  1741. 
From  1744  onward  he  filled  various  government  posi 
tions,  becoming,  as  we  have  seen,  Prime-Minister  in 
1763  and  resigning  in  1765.  He  was  nominally  a  Whig 
but  really  a  Tory.  The  International  Encyclopaedia 
says: 

"Grenville  was  distinguished  for  eloquence,  public  spirit, 
business  qualities,  and  extensive  knowledge,  but  his  im 
perious  nature  made  him  an  unpopular  minister,  alike  with 
the  King,  the  Parliament,  and  the  people." 

Sketch  of  Pitt.  Since  the  time  when  William  Pitt 
had  entered  Parliament  in  1730  at  the  age  of  twenty- 
six  he  had  advocated  the  people's  cause,  whence,  in  time, 
the  term  was  applied  to  him  of  the  "  Great  Commoner." 
He  particularly  opposed  Robert  Walpole,  the  Prime- 
Minister,  who  preserved  his  supremacy  by  the  most 
corrupt  and  dictatorial  means,  opposing  by  bribery 

1  For  an  extensive  report  of  the  debates  see  Great  Debates  in  American 
History,  vol.  L,  chap.  ii. 


42  American  Debate  [1766 

and  intimidation  the  rising  democratic  spirit  of  the 
nation. 

In  Pitt,  however,  he  found  an  antagonist  too  clever 
for  all  his  arts.  This  young  Oxonian,  naturally  endowed 
with  the  voice  and  temperament  of  an  actor,  had 
thoroughly  prepared  himself  for  a  political  career  by 
a  painstaking  study  of  forensic  oratory  and  state 
craft,  especially  as  exemplified  in  Greek  and  Roman 
history. 

Pitt's  maiden  speech  was  an  ironical  congratulatory 
address  on  the  occasion  of  the  marriage  in  1736  of  the 
Prince  of  Wales,  Frederick  Louis,  who  was  in  sympathy 
with  the  popular  sentiment,  and  hence  had  incurred 
the  displeasure  of  his  father,  George  II.,  who  forbade 
the  Minister  of  the  Crown  to  extend  him  the  congratu 
latory  address  customary  on  such  occasions.  Pitt 
therefore  seized  the  opportunity  thus  afforded  to  attack 
the  Government  covertly  by  a  mock  eulogy  of  the  tender 
relations  existing  between  the  monarch  and  his  son,  so 
shrewdly  phrased  that  no  objections  could  be  brought 
against  it.  Walpole  was  more  perturbed  than  at  any 
other  time  in  his  life.  He  remarked,  "We  must  muzzle 
that  terrible  cornet  of  horse, "  referring  to  Pitt's  military 
office,  and  two  weeks  thereafter  he  deprived  Pitt  of  his 
commission. 

This  was  the  first  and  the  fatal  mistake  of  Walpole's 
hitherto  triumphant  career.  It  made  Pitt  a  popular 
hero,  placing  him  at  the  head  of  a  new  party  known  as 
the  Patriots.  From  that  time  on  until  the  fall  of  Wal 
pole  in  1741,  the  political  tilts  between  Walpole  and 
Pitt  formed  the  chief  events  of  Parliamentary  history. 
With  every  encounter  the  power  of  Walpole  waned, 
while  that  of  Pitt  grew  apace. 

In  similar  fashion  Pitt  opposed  Walpole's  successor, 


1766]  Supremacy  of  Parliament  43 

John  Carteret,  Earl  of  Granville,  causing  his  downfall  in 
1744,  when  Henry  Pelham,  who  was  in  sympathy  with 
Pitt's  views,  became  Prime-Minister,  Pitt  taking  office 
under  him.  Pelham  died  in  1754,  and  his  brother, 
Thomas  Pelham  Holies,  the  Duke  of  Newcastle- under- 
Lyme,  succeeded  him.  This  ministry  of  only  two  years' 
duration  was  notable  for  British  military  disasters,  and 
Pitt  rose  in  opposition  to  it,  and  drove  Newcastle 
from  power,  h  mself  becoming  Prime- Minister  in  1756. 
Newcastle  by  the  aid  of  the  King  secured  the  defeat  of 
Pitt's  ministry  in  April,  1757,  but  an  uprising  of  the 
people  compelled  his  reappointment  in  June.  Under 
Pitt  British  arms  achieved  an  invariable  succession  of 
remarkable  triumphs  on  the  continents  of  Europe  and 
America  and  on  the  high  seas.  This  awoke  the  jealousy 
of  George  III.  when  in  1760  this  ambitious  young  prince 
ascended  the  throne,  and,  in  1761,  as  we  have  seen,  he 
brought  about  the  downfall  of  the  most  glorious 
administration  in  English  history.  Thereafter,  with  one 
brief  interval,  Pitt  remained  in  opposition  to  the  King's 
undemocratic  policy  as  the  "Great  Commoner"  of  the 
Commons,  and,  after  1767,  as  Lord  Chatham  in  the 
Lords. 

Says  Professor  Charles  Kendall  Adams  in  Represen 
tative  British  Orations: 

"Pitt  was  not  in  a  true  sense  a  great  debater.  His  ability 
lay  not  in  any  power  to  analyze  a  difficult  and  complicated 
subject  and  present  the  bearings  of  its  several  parts  in  a 
manner  to  convince  the  reason.  His  peculiarities  were 
rather  in  his  way  of  seizing  upon  the  more  obvious  phases 
of  the  question  at  issue,  and  presenting  them  with  a  nobility 
of  sentiment,  a  fervor  of  energy,  a  loftiness  of  conception, 
and  a  power  of  invective  that  bore  down  and  destroyed  all 
opposition." 


44  American  Debate  [1766 

Franklin  said  of  Pitt:  "I  have  sometimes  seen  elo 
quence  without  wisdom,  and  often  wisdom  without 
eloquence;  but  in  him  I  have  seen  them  united  in  the 
highest  degree." 

Of  his  oratory  Macaulay  writes,  in  a  review  of 
Thackeray's  Chatham,  as  follows : 

"On  the  stage,  he  would  have  been  the  finest  Brutus  or 
Coriolanus  ever  seen.  .  .  .  His  figure,  when  he  first 
appeared  in  Parliament,  was  strikingly  graceful  and  com 
manding,  his  features  high  and  noble,  his  eyes  full  of  fire. 
His  voice,  even  when  it  sank  to  a  whisper,  was  heard  to  the 
remotest  benches;  when  he  strained  it  to  the  fullest  extent, 
the  sound  rose  like  the  swell  of  the  organ  of  a  great  cathe 
dral,  shook  the  house  with  its  peal,  and  was  heard  through 
lobbies  and  down  staircases,  to  the  Court  of  Requests  and 
the  precincts  of  Westminster  Hall.  He  cultivated  all  these 
eminent  advantages  with  the  most  assiduous  care.  His 
action  is  described  by  a  very  malignant  observer  as  equal 
to  that  of  Garrick.  His  play  of  countenance  was  wonderful ; 
he  frequently  disconcerted  a  hostile  orator  by  a  single 
glance  of  indignation  or  scorn.  Every  tone,  from  the  im 
passioned  cry  to  the  thrilling  aside,  was  perfectly  at  his 
command.  It  is  by  no  means  improbable  that  the  pains 
which  he  took  to  improve  his  great  personal  advantages 
had,  in  some  respects,  a  prejudicial  operation,  and  tended  to 
nourish  in  him  that  passion  for  theatrical  effect  which,  as 
we  have  already  remarked,  was  one  of  the  most  conspicuous 
blemishes  in  his  character."1 

The  argument  of  Pitt  on  the  repeal  of  the  Stamp  Act 
revolved  around  the  point  that,  according  to  the  British 
constitution,  while  Parliament  was  supreme  in  legisla 
tion  for  the  Empire,  taxation  was  no  part  of  the  legisla 
tive  power — that  taxes  were  a  voluntary  gift  and  grant 

1  See  also  the  eulogy  of  Pitt  by  Henry  Grattan,  found  in  most  collec 
tions  of  British  eloquence.  It  begins,  "  The  secretary  stood  alone." 


1766]  Supremacy  of  Parliament  45 

of  the  Commons  alone,  who  represented  the  property  of 
the  United  Kingdom  only.  That  the  colonies  were 
virtually  represented  in  the  Commons  he  scouted  as 
*  'the  most  contemptible  idea  that  ever  entered  into  the 
head  of  man."  In  this  connection  he  alluded  to  the 
sparsely  peopled  "rotten  boroughs"  whose  existence 
was  justified  as  virtually  also  representing  populous 
districts  such  as  the  newly  arisen  manufacturing  towns 
to  which  members  of  Parliament  continued  to  be 
denied,  and  he  predicted  that  the  system  could  not 
continue  a  century,  a  prophecy  which  was  fulfilled  by 
the  abolition  of  such  boroughs  in  1832. 

Grenville  in  his  former  defense  of  the  cider  tax  had, 
by  frequent  queries  as  to  where  a  new  tax  could  be  laid 
if  not  on  cider,  given  Pitt  the  opportunity  to  whistle, 
from  the  floor  of  the  House,  the  air  of  a  popular  song, 
Gentle  Shepherd,  Tell  me  Where,  affixing  thereby  the 
nickname  of  "Gentle  Shepherd"  to  the  anxious  in 
quirer,  the  amenity  of  which  christening  was  heightened 
by  the  fact  that  Grenville  and  Pitt  were  brothers-in- 
law.  This  habit  of  rhetorical  interrogation  persisted  in 
spite  of  the  ridicule,  and  Grenville  now  asked : 

Wherein  lay  the  distinction  between  external  and  internal 
taxes?  Were  they  not  the  same  in  effect  ?  Had  any  gentle 
man  objected  to  the  right  to  tax  America  when  he  put  the 
question  on  the  occasion  of  the  proposal  of  the  Stamp  Act? 
When  were  the  Americans  emancipated  from  obedience  to 
Parliament,  their  protector?  Then  he  directly  charged 
that  the  "sedition"  in  America  was  due  to  encouragement 
by  the  Opposition  in  Commons. 

Pitt  boldly  confessed  that  he  was  in  hearty  sympathy 
with  resistance  by  the  Britons  in  America  to  uncon 
stitutional  taxation. 


46  American  Debate  [1766 

"Three  millions  of  people,  so  dead  to  all  the  feelings  of 
liberty  as  voluntarily  to  submit  to  be  made  slaves  would 
have  been  fit  instruments  to  make  slaves  of  the  rest  [of  the 
British]." 

He  refused  to  enlighten  the  obtuse  Mr.  Grenville 
upon  the  difference  between  external  and  internal  taxes, 
and,  in  reply  to  his  question  as  to  when  the  Americans 
became  emancipated,  he  asked,  "When  were  they  made 
slaves?" 

In  the  vein  of  Barre  he  discussed  Parliament's  "protec 
tion"  of  America,  giving  statistics  to  prove  that,  owing  to 
the  trade  with  the  colonies,  estimated  at  £2,000,000  a  year, 
land  values  in  England  had  increased  fifty  per  cent . x  ' '  This 
is  the  price  America  pays  you  for  her  protection."  And 
then,  referring  to  a  remark  of  Mr.  Nugent,  an  administra 
tion  speaker,  that  "a  peppercorn  [nominal  payment]  in 
acknowledgment  of  the  right  to  tax  America  is  of  more 
value  than  millions  without  it,"  he  scornfully  asked,  "And 
shall  a  miserable  financier  come  with  a  boast  that  he  can 
bring  a  'peppercorn'  into  the  exchequer  by  the  loss  of 
millions  to  the  nation?" 

Pitt  concluded  with  a  scathing  indictment  of  not 
only  the  colonial,  but  the  foreign  "peace"  policy  of  the 
administration : 

"Is  this  your  boasted  peace — not  to  sheathe  the  sword  in 
its  scabbard,  but  in  the  bowels  of  your  countrymen?"  He 
prophesied  ruin  to  the  Empire  if  coercion  of  America  were 
pursued,  even  if  the  colonists  were  defeated.  "America,  if 
she  fall,  would  fall  like  the  strong  man;  she  would  embrace 

1  This  use  of  land  values  as  an  index  of  prosperity  indicates  an  econo 
mic  insight  far  in  advance  of  other  English  statesmen  of  the  time.  It  is 
a  point  for  "Single  Taxers." 


1766]  Supremacy  of  Parliament  47 

the   pillars  of   the  state,  and  pull  down  the  constitution 
along  with  her." 

'  He  moved  that  the  Stamp  Act  be  repealed  "abso 
lutely,  totally,  and  immediately,"  with  the  reason 
assigned  that  it  was  based  on  an  erroneous  principle, 
and  with  an  accompanying  strong  assertion  of  British 
authority  over  the  colonies  in  every  point  of  legislation 
whatsoever — every  governmental  power — "except  that 
of  taking  their  money  out  of  their  pockets  without  their 
consent." 

The  Supremacy  of  Parliament.  A  strong  movement 
now  arose  in  Parliament  to  repeal  the  Stamp  Act,  but 
before  doing  so,  to  assert  the  supremacy  of  Parliament 
"in  all  cases  whatsoever."  General  Con  way,  on  Janu 
ary  27,  made  a  motion  to  the  latter  effect.  Colonel 
Barre  moved  to  strike  out  the  final  phrase.  On  this 
point  the  debate  waged  until  four  o'clock  in  the  morning 
of  the  28th,  when  the  vote  was  taken  on  Barre 's  amend 
ment,  and  it  was  negatived  by  an  almost  unanimous 
vote. 

Henry  Seymour  Conway  had  been  a  member  suc 
cessively  of  the  Irish  and  British  Parliaments  since 
1741,  serving  frequently  during  this  time  in  the  army. 
He  was  liberal  in  his  political  views,  supporting  John 
Wilkes,  the  "tribune  of  the  people"  in  his  struggle  to 
obtain  the  seat  in  Parliament  to  which  he  had  been 
again  and  again  elected.  Later  Conway  opposed  Lord 
North's  American  policy.  Says  the  Encyclopedia 
Britannica: 

"  Conway  was  personally  one  of  the  most  popular  men  of 
his  day.  He  was  handsome,  conciliatory,  and  agreeable,  and 
a  man  of  refined  taste  and  untarnished  honor.  As  a  soldier 
he  was  a  dashing  officer,  but  a  poor  general.  He  was  weak, 


48  American  Debate  [1766 

vacillating,  and  ineffective  as  a  politician,  lacking  in  judg 
ment  and  decision,  and  without  any  great  parliamentary 
talent." 


General  Conway's  resolution  was  passed  on  Febru 
ary  10,  and  an  inquiry  was  begun  on  repeal  of  the 
Stamp  Act.  Among  other  American  agents  in  London, 
Dr.  Franklin  was  examined.  To  the  question  whether 
the  Americans  would  submit  to  pay  stamp  duties  if  the 
amounts  were  reduced  to  nominal  sums,  he  answered, 
"No,  they  never  will  submit  to  it."  To  the  question 
whether  the  colonial  assemblies  would  admit  the  right 
of  Parliament  to  tax  America,  he  replied,  "They  never 
will  do  it  unless  compelled  by  force  of  arms/' 

Sketch  of  Franklin.  Benjamin  Franklin  was  indis 
putably  the  leading  citizen  of  America  during  the 
greater  part  of  the  eighteenth  century,  being  foremost 
as  a  scientist,  philosopher,  public  administrator,  states 
man,  diplomatist,  author,  and  man  of  business.  From 
the  time  when,  in  1729,  he  founded  the  Pennsylvania 
Gazette  of  Philadelphia  until  in  1787  he  took  a  promi 
nent  part  in  the  convention  which  framed  the  Consti 
tution  of  the  United  States,  he  was  connected  with 
institutions  and  movements  of  every  kind  that  looked 
to  the  commercial,  educational,  and  political  advance 
ment  of  the  country.  He  founded  the  Philadelphia 
Library  in  1731;  in  1737  he  began  the  publication  of 
Poor  Richard's  Almanac,  a  work  of  homely  wisdom 
exactly  adapted  to  the  needs  of  the  earnest,  hardworking 
colonists;  he  entered  upon  his  long  and  efficient  career 
of  administrative  service  in  1737,  when  he  became  post 
master  of  Philadelphia;  in  1743  he  founded  the  Ameri 
can  Philosophical  Society  and  the  institution  which  is 
now  the  University  of  Pennsylvania;  in  1752  he  made 


1766]  Supremacy  of  Parliament  49 

the  fundamental  discovery  of  modern  electrical  science, 
demonstrating  that  lightning  was  an  electrical  discharge 
by  experiments  made  with  a  kite  during  a  thunderstorm ; 
in  1753  as  deputy  postmaster-general  for  the  colonies  he 
became  the  administrative  head  of  the  service. 

Mirabeau,  the  great  orator  of  the  French  Revolution, 
said  of  Franklin: 

"Antiquity  would  have  raised  altars  to  his  mighty  genius, 
who,  to  the  advantage  of  mankind,  compassing  in  his  mind 
the  heavens  and  the  earth,  was  able  to  restrain  alike  thunder 
bolts  and  tyrants," 

which  thought  was  elsewhere  expressed  in  the  Latin 
epigrammatic  verse: 

"Eripuit  coelo  fulmen,  sceptrumque  tyrannis." 
(He  snatched  from  heaven  the  thunderbolt,  the  scepter, 
too,  from  tyrants.) 

Franklin's  political  philosophy,  while  of  the  demo 
cratic  school  of  Jefferson  and  Paine,  differed  from  theirs 
in  compromising  more  with  existing  conditions.  He  had 
a  genius  for  the  formulation  of  plans  that  were  both 
adoptable  and  adaptable.  The  well-known  picture  of 
him  entering  Philadelphia  as  a  youth  with  a  loaf  of 
bread  under  his  arm,  to  be  truly  symbolic  of  his  charac 
ter,  should  have  the  long  loaf  cut  in  two,  for  his  maxim 
was  that  "  the  half  loaf  is  better  than  no  bread." 

Besides  a  large  amount  of  correspondence,  and 
papers  and  pamphlets  of  many  kinds,  Franklin  left 
behind  him  one  of  the  most  notable  autobiographies  in 
literature. 

Of  Franklin's  literary  style  his  biographer,  John 
Bigelow,  says: 


50  American  Debate  [1766 

"The  Doric  simplicity  of  his  style;  his  incomparable 
facility  of  condensing  a  great  principle  into  an  apologue  or  an 
anecdote,  many  of  which,  as  he  applied  them,  have  become 
folk-lore  of  all  nations ;  his  habitual  moderation  of  statement, 
his  aversion  to  exaggeration,  his  inflexible  logic,  and  his 
perfect  truthfulness, — made  him  one  of  the  most  persuasive 
men  of  his  time,  and  his  writings  a  model  which  no  one  can 
study  without  profit.  A  judicious  selection  from  Franklin's 
writings  should  constitute  a  part  of  the  curriculum  of  every 
college  and  high  school  that  aspires  to  cultivate  in  its  pupils 
a  pure  style  and  correct  literary  taste." 

On  February  18,  1766,  the  examination  of  Franklin 
was  finished,  and  soon  after  this  the  Commons  repealed 
the  Stamp  Act,  and  passed  the  declaration  of  the 
unlimited  supremacy  of  Parliament.  Both  bills  were 
sent  to  the  Lords  on  March  5.  This  House  had,  on 
February  3,  already  debated  the  latter  question.  The 
two  contestants  were  Lord  Camden  (Charles  Pratt) 
and  Lord  Mansfield  (William  Murray).1 

Sketch  of  Camden.  Charles  Pratt  had  been  a  school 
mate  of  Pitt  at  Eton,  and  always  sympathized  with  the 
politics  of  the  "Great  Commoner."  Admitted  to  the 
bar  in  1738,  he  attained  no  distinction  in  his  profession 
until  1752  when  he  successfully  defended  a  bookseller 
charged  with  libelling  the  House  of  Commons.  He  was 
recognized  as  the  chief  authority  on  libels,  being  called 
"the  maintainer  of  English  constitutional  liberty.*'  In 
1757  he  was  appointed  Attorney-General,  and  in  1762 
Chief- Justice  of  the  Common  Pleas,  in  which  position 
he  presided  over  the  trial  of  John  Wilkes,  the  radical 

1  For  the  speech  of  Lord  Mansfield  in  full,  with  annotations,  see 
Representative  British  Orations,  by  Charles  Kendall  Adams.  Professor 
Adams  in  his  notes  reproduces  a  high  tribute  to  Mansfield  as  a  jurist  by 
Justice  Joseph  Story. 


1766]  Supremacy  of  Parliament  51 

to  whom  a  seat  had  been  denied  in  the  Commons.  In 
this  case  he  declared  the  action  of  the  Government  ille 
gal,  an  opinion  which,  coinciding  with  the  sentiments  of 
the  common  people,  made  him  the  most  popular  of 
judges.  In  1765  he  was  made  Baron  Camden  under 
the  Rockingham  administration,  whose  American 
policy,  notwithstanding,  he  opposed,  and  in  the  same 
year  became  Lord  Chancellor.  In  1771  he  joined  with 
Chatham  in  opposing  the  Government,  and  resigned 
his  office.  He  became  a  chief  opponent  of  Lord  North's 
American  policy,  and  was  hailed  in  the  colonies  as  their 
stout  defender,  many  counties  and  towns  being  named 
for  him.  He  was  president  of  the  Council  under  Rock 
ingham  in  1782-83,  and  under  the  younger  Pitt  from 
1783  until  his  death.  He  was  created  Earl  Camden 
and  Viscount  Bayham  in  1786. 

Sketch  of  Mansfield.  William  Murray,  a  younger 
son  of  Lord  Stormont,  an  extreme  Tory,  determined, 
like  Pitt,  at  an  early  age  on  a  political  career,  and  per 
formed  even  greater  drudgery  in  preparing  himself  for 
it.  At  Oxford  he  translated  all  of  Cicero's  orations  into 
English,  and,  after  an  interval,  without  consultation  of 
the  original,  rendered  them  back  into  Latin.  Admitted 
to  the  bar  at  the  age  of  twenty-six,  he  was,  says  John 
Lord  Campbell  in  his  Lives  of  the  Chief-Justices  of 
England, 

"already  acquainted,  not  only  with  the  international  law, 
but  with  the  codes  of  all  the  most  civilized  nations,  ancient 
and  modern;  he  was  an  elegant  classical  scholar;  he  was 
thoroughly  imbued  with  the  literature  of  his  own  country; 
he  had  profoundly  studied  our  mixed  constitution;  he 
had  a  sincere  desire  to  be  of  service  to  his  country;  and 
he  was  animated  by  a  noble  aspiration  after  honorable 
fame." 


52  American  Debate  [1766 

In  1742,  at  the  mature  age  of  thirty-seven,  Murray 
entered  the  House  of  Commons,  and  took  a  command 
ing  position  among  the  Tories,  becoming  the  leading 
forensic  antagonist  of  Pitt.  He  was  appointed  King's 
Attorney  in  1754,  and  became  Chief -Justice  two  years 
later,  entering  the  House  of  Lords  under  the  title  of 
Baron  Mansfield.  In  1776  he  was  made  Earl  of  Mans 
field.  He  died  in  1 793,  in  the  eighty-ninth  year  of  his  age. 

The  question  as  to  which  was  the  greatest  debater 
of  their  time,  Chatham  or  Mansfield,  raged  during  their 
era,  and,  though  increasing  democratic  opinion  has  in 
clined  the  modern  view  in  favor  of  the  Whig  statesman, 
Mansfield's  claim  to  preeminence  over  Pitt,  or  at  least 
equality  with  him,  still  has  able  supporters.  Among  the 
Tories  of  his  day  Mansfield  was  regarded  as  clearly 
the  superior.  Lord  Waldegrave  said  in  1755:  "In  all 
the  debates  of  consequence  Murray,  the  Attorney- 
General,  had  greatly  the  advantage  over  Pitt  in  point 
of  argument ;  and,  abuse  only  excepted,  was  not  much 
his  inferior  in  any  part  of  oratory." 

Of  the  character  of  his  eloquence  Edmund  Burton 
says  in  his  work,  Character  Deduced  from  Classical 
Remains  (1763): 

"  As  a  speaker  in  the  House  of  Lords,  where  was  his  com 
petitor?  The  grace  of  his  action,  and  the  fire  and  vivacity 
of  his  looks,  are  still  present  to  imagination;  and  the 
harmony  of  his  voice  yet  vibrates  in  the  ear  of  those  who 
have  been  accustomed  to  listen  to  him.  His  Lordship 
possessed  the  strongest  powers  of  discrimination;  his 
language  was  elegant  and  perspicuous,  arranged  with  the 
happiest  method,  and  applied  with  the  utmost  extent  of 
human  ingenuity;  his  images  were  often  bold,  and  always 
just;  but  the  character  of  his  eloquence  is  that  of  being 
flowing,  perspicuous,  convincing,  and  affecting." 


1766]  Supremacy  of  Parliament  53 

But  the  strongest  testimony  to  the  ability  of  Mans 
field  is  that  of  the  early  American  statesmen  who 
regarded  him  as  the  subtlest  and  most  persuasive  advo 
cate  of  the  principles  that  were  opposed  to  their  theory 
of  government.  Thus  Jefferson  spoke  of  "  honeyed 
Mansfieldianism "  as  the  insidious  enemy  of  popular 
liberty.  The  liberty  of  one  class  of  present  American 
citizens,  however,  is  largely  due  to  the  influence  of  one 
memorable  decision  of  Lord  Mansfield  on  American 
jurisprudence.  This  was  his  liberation  of  the  slave 
Sommersett,  who  claimed  his  freedom  because  of  set 
ting  foot  on  free  soil,  namely  that  of  Great  Britain. 

In  the  debate  in  the  Lords  on  the  repeal  of  the  Stamp 
Act  Lord  Camden  denied  the  right  to  tax  America  on 
the  ground  that  taxation  and  representation  were 
inseparably  connected  by  an  eternal  law  of  nature,  the 
right  to  property.  In  his  argument  he  largely  followed 
Pitt  in  the  Commons. 

He  was  replied  to  by  Lord  Mansfield,  whose  speech 
was  by  far  the  ablest  presentation  by  any  British 
statesman  of  the  affirmative  side  of  the  question. 
While  formally  answering  Lord  Camden,  he  was  really 
opposing  the  arguments  of  Pitt. 

Mansfield  attacked  the  central  position  of  Camden  and 
the  "Great  Commoner,"  that  taxation  without  representa 
tion  was  a  violation  of  the  British  constitution,  by  asserting 
that  the  constitution  had  "been  always  in  a  moving  state, 
either  gaining  or  losing  something"  and  that,  by  the  acts 
of  Crown  and  Parliament,  it  had  now  become  a  different 
thing  from  the  last  definite  statement  of  it  in  the  Revolu 
tion  of  1688,  on  which  Camden  based  the  Whig  contention. 
The  colonies,  he  said,  under  their  continuing  allegiance  to 
Crown  and  Parliament,  could  not  stand  on  their  rights  as 
these  were  at  the  time  of  their  foundation.  "They  were 


54  American  Debate  [1766 

modeled  gradually  into  their  present  forms,  respectively,  by 
charters,  grants,  and  statutes;  but  they  were  never  separated 
from  the  mother  country,  or  so  emancipated  as  to  become 
sui  juris." 

Mansfield  declared  that,  if  there  was  no  express  law, 
or  reason  founded  on  inference  from  it,  yet  usage  alone, 
the  compliance  of  the  colonies  with  English  jurisdiction, 
was  sufficient  to  support  that  authority. 

He  here  cited  various  colonial  appeals  to  the  privy  council 
on  intercolonial  disputes  to  be  settled  by  English  law,  and 
the  acceptance  of  its  decisions.  Without  such  acceptance, 
he  said,  so  great  was  intercolonial  jealousy  that  anarchy 
would  prevail  in  America,  for  no  other  supreme  authority 
would  exist.  If  the  colonies  attempted  to  form  a  union 
independent  of  Great  Britain,  it  could  not  be  effected 
without  great  violences,  so  diverse  and  conflicting  were  the 
natures  of  the  several  governments.  He  admitted  that  the 
colonies  had  paid  a  heavy  price  in  restrictions  of  trade  for 
having  a  supreme  power  over  them,  but  claimed  that  the 
protection  afforded  by  the  British  government  was  worth 
it. 

The  colonies,  he  claimed,  were  as  much  represented  in 
Parliament  as  eight  of  the  nine  millions  of  Englishmen. 
Was  it  proposed  to  "new-model"  the  constitution  of  Great 
Britain?  The  representatives  of  the  voting  million  also 
acted  for  the  non  voters.1  A  member  of  Parliament  repre 
sented  not  only  his  particular  constituency,  but  the  in 
habitants  of  every  other  borough  in  Great  Britain.2 

He  denied  that  there  was  any  essential  distinction  be 
tween  external  and  internal  taxes,  showing,  by  the  chain 

1 A  point  which,  whether  sound  or  unsound,  is  applicable  to  the 
present  question  of  woman  suffrage. 

2  The  same  view  has  been  urged  many  times  by  various  eminent 
American  statesmen  in  justifying  their  voting  against  the  interests,  and, 
in  some  cases,  against  the  positive  instructions,  of  their  constituents. 


1766]  Supremacy  of  Parliament  55 

of  the  incidence  of  taxation,  that  a  duty  of  any  kind  or 
amount  on  a  product  affected  production  adversely. z 

He  advised  lenity  toward  the  colonies,  but  said  that  this 
should  be  manifested  only  after  stern  measures  had  com 
pelled  them  to  admit  the  supremacy  of  Parliament.  He 
closed  with  the  words  of  Maurice,  Prince  of  Orange,  con 
cerning  the  Hollanders:  "God  bless  this  industrious,  frugal, 
and  well-meaning,  but  easily  deluded  people."2 

The  Stamp  Act  was  repealed,  and  the  declaration 
of  the  supremacy  of  Parliament  was  passed  in  the 
Lords,  each  by  a  large  majority,  and  they  became  laws 
by  the  royal  signature.  Mansfield's  view  that  the 
British  constitution  knows  no  limitation  of  the  power  of 
Parliament,  nor  distinction  between  taxation  and  other 
legislation,  has  been  generally  accepted  in  Great  Britain. 
Edmund  Burke  upheld  it  in  1780  in  his  "Speech  to  the 
Electors  of  Bristol, "  with  a  qualification  in  the  applica 
tion  of  the  principle  to  America.  In  1868,  in  the  trial  of 
Edward  John  Eyre,  Governor  of  Jamaica,  on  the  charge 
of  illegal  and  arbitrary  acts  committed  by  him  subse 
quent  to  a  negro  insurrection  in  1865,  the  British  judge, 
Colin  Blackburn  (later  Baron  Blackburn) ,  decided  that, 
"although  the  general  rule  is  that  ,the  legislative 
assembly  has  the  sole  right  of  imposing  taxes  in  the 
colony,  yet  when  the  imperial  legislature  chooses  to 
impose  taxes,  according  to  the  rule  of  English  law  they 
have  a  right  to  do  it." 3 

1 A  point  in  discussion  of  modern  questions  of  taxation,  particularly 
the  tariff. 

3  Mansfield's  speech  is  a  model  for  debaters  in  its  strict  limitation  to 
the  fundamental  issue,  the  question  of  right,  that  of  expediency  not 
entering  into  consideration.  John  Lord  Campbell,  in  his  Lives  of  the 
Chief  Justices  of  England,  though  friendly  to  Whig  principles,  said  of 
this  speech  of  Mansfield  that  it  was  one  of  those  arguments  to  which  he 
had  "never  been  able  to  find  an  answer." 

3  Yonge's  Constitutional  History  of  England,  p.  66. 


56  American  Debate  [1766] 

It  should  be  noted  that  the  planters  of  Jamaica  at 
the  time  of  the  contest  of  the  Americans  for  colonial 
rights  were  even  more  vehement  than  these  against 
the  rule  of  Parliament.  However,  the  presence  of  the 
British  fleet  in  the  waters  of  the  West  Indies  kept  them 
from  revolution. 

The  leading  patriots  in  America  soon  began  to 
accept  Mansfield's  view  that  there  was  no  distinction 
between  Parliament's  right  to  tax  and  to  legislate  in 
other  matters.  Probably  the  first  pronouncement  of 
this  in  the  colonies  was  by  Joseph  Hawley,  member 
from  Northampton,  who  declared  in  1766,  in  the 
Massachusetts  House  of  Representatives,  that  "Great 
Britain  had  no  right  to  legislate  [at  all]  for  us."  James 
Otis  thereupon  arose  in  his  seat,  and,  bowing,  said: 
"  He  has  gone  farther  than  I  have  yet  done." 

Colonial  Representation  in  Parliament.  Otis  differed 
with  most  of  the  patriots,  notably  Samuel  Adams,  on 
the  practicability  of  colonial  representation  in  Parlia 
ment,  which  Otis  asserted.  Franklin  also  held  this  view, 
as  did  many  statesmen  and  publicists  in  Great  Britain, 
notably  Adam  Smith,  who  advocated  representation  in 
Parliament  apportioned  according  to  national  revenue. 
Smith  prophesied  that,  if  this  were  granted  to  the 
colonies,  some  day  the  seat  of  British  government 
would  be  transferred,  and  properly  so,  to  America,  as 
the  central  and  most  flourishing  part  of  the  Empire. 


CHAPTER  IV 

MASSACHUSETTS    VS.    PARLIAMENT 
1767-1774 

The  "Townshend  Taxes" — Protest  of  Massachusetts — Intercolonial 
Correspondence — Controversy  between  Lord  Hillsborough  and 
Massachusetts  Assembly  on  the  Subject — Dissolution  of  the  As 
sembly — Non-Importation  Agreement — Controversy  over  Royal 
Troops — "Appeal  to  Americans"  by  Josiah  Quincy,  26. — Parliament 
Proposes  to  Try  American  Patriots  in  England — Sketch  of  Samuel 
Adams — His  Threat  of  American  Independence — Controversy  over 
Royal  Troops  between  Governor  Francis  Bernard  and  Massachu 
setts  Assembly — Protest  of  Virginia  against  Deportation  of  Ameri 
cans  for  Trial — Thomas  Hutchinson  Succeeds  Bernard — Sketch  of 
Hutchinson — Boston's  "Appeal  to  the  World" — Controversy  in 
South  Carolina  on  Patriotic  Associations :  Christopher  Gadsden  vs. 
William  Henry  Drayton — Sketches  of  the  Debaters — Lord  North 
Becomes  Prime  Minister — Sketch  of  North — Taxes  Removed  Save 
on  Tea — The  "Boston  Massacre" — Controversy  between  Gov 
ernor  Hutchinson  and  Massachusetts  Assembly  over  Troops 
— Troops  Removed — Burning  of  Revenue  Schooner  Gaspee — 
Controversy  between  Hutchinson  and  the  Assembly  over  Supremacy 
of  Parliament  and  Intercolonial  Correspondence — Boston  Tea- 
Party — Boston  Port  Bill — Suspension  of  Massachusetts  Govern 
ment — Barre  on  the  Subject — Protest  of  Boston  against  Port 
Bill — Obstruction  of  New  Government. 

THE  proposal  to  tax  America  for  revenue  purposes 
sprang  up  again,  strange  to  say,  in  an  administra 
tion  organized  by  Pitt.     In  1766  Rockingham  was  dis 
missed,  and  the  "  Great  Commoner"  was  called  upon  to 
form  a  new  ministry.     In  this  he  took  the  minor  office 

57 


58  American  Debate  [1767- 

of  Lord  Privy  Seal,  which  required  his  removal  to  the 
House  of  Lords;  and  in  August  he  was  created  Earl  of 
Chatham.  The  Duke  of  Graf  ton,  First  Lord  of  the 
Treasury,  thereupon  became  the  real  head  of  the 
government.  The  cabinet  was  composed  largely  of 
"prerogative  men, "  subservient  to  the  will  of  the  King, 
and  these  returned  again  to  the  project  of  making  the 
colonies  contribute  to  the  expenses  of  the  British 
government. 

The  Townshend  Taxes.  In  May,  1767,  the  brilliant 
but  erratic  Charles  Townshend,  Chancellor  of  the 
Exchequer,  instigated  by  ex-minister  George  Grenville, 
the  ministerial  leader  in  Commons,  submitted  to  that 
House  a  bill  imposing  on  the  colonies  import  duties  on 
glass,  paper,  painters'  materials,  and  tea.  The  preamble 
declared  that  the  impost  was  to  defray  the  expenses  of 
defending  these  provinces.  Owing  probably  to  Lord 
Chatham's  absence  from  the  deliberations  on  account  of 
sickness,  the  bill  passed  both  Houses  in  June  with  little 
opposition.  Royal  commissioners  were  appointed  for 
the  colonies  to  see  that  all  the  laws  of  Parliament  were 
executed  in  regard  to  American  trade.  They  were 
instructed  to  use  for  this  purpose  the  royal  troops 
quartered  on  the  colonies.  The  new  duties  were  to 
apply  to  the  maintenance  of  Crown  officers  and  royal 
troops  in  America,  a  provision  which  plainly  showed 
that  the  duties  were  not  so  much  occasioned  by  the 
need  of  British  revenue,  as  by  the  desire  to  enforce  the 
principle  of  the  sovereignty  of  Parliament.  The  measure 
relating  to  the  troops  was  popularly  called  the  "  Mutiny 
Act." 

American  Protests.  These  acts  created  great  excite 
ment  in  the  colonies.  In  January,  1768,  the  Massa 
chusetts  House  of  Representatives  protested  to  the 


1774]         Massachusetts  vs.  Parliament  59 

King  and  the  Ministry  against  them,  on  the  ground 
that  the  colonies  were  not  represented  in  Parliament 
which  enacted  them.  They  were  a  violation,  said  the 
House,  of  the  hitherto  unquestioned  original  contract 
of  the  Crown  with  the  first  settlers  in  America,  that 
"if  these  adventurers,"  at  "their  own  cost"  and  "at 
the  hazard  of  their  lives,"  would  "purchase  a  new 
world,"  and  thereby  "enlarge  the  King's  dominions," 
they  should  enjoy  all  the  rights  of  "His  Majesty's 
subjects  within  the  realm,"  including  freedom  from 
taxes  in  laying  of  which  they  had  no  voice. 

In  reference  to  the  application  of  the  taxes  to  the 
support  of  Crown  officers  and  royal  troops  in  the 
colonies,  the  House  said  that  this  would  introduce  an 
absolute  government  in  America.  The  judges  already 
were  independent  of  the  people  in  regard  to  term  of 
office, I  and  if  they  were  to  have  their  salaries  from  the 
Crown,  how  easy  would  it  be  "for  a  corrupt  governor 
to  have  a  set  of  judges  to  his  mind,  to  deprive  a  bench 
of  justice  of  its  glory  and  the  people  of  their  security." 

The  House  addressed  a  circular  letter  to  the  other 
colonies  requesting  cooperation  for  redress.  The 
British  ministry,  remembering  the  unity  of  opposition 
secured  by  the  colonists  by  the  Stamp  Act  Congress, 
determined  to  prevent  such  another  assembly,  and 
Lord  Hillsborough,  Secretary  of  State,  instructed 
Governor  Francis  Bernard  of  Massachusetts  to  require 
the  House  of  Representatives  at  its  next  meeting,  on 
the  ground  of  the  "  unconstitutionality "  of  the  pro 
ceeding,  to  rescind  its  call  for  colonial  cooperation,  on 
penalty  of  dissolution.  The  other  colonial  governors 
were  warned  to  use  their  endeavors  to  prevent  the 
proposed  "unwarrantable  combination." 

1  A  point  applicable  to  the  present  issue  of  recall  of  judges. 


60  American  Debate  [1767- 

The  House  refused  compliance  with  the  order,  and 
wrote  to  Hillsborough  a  bold  and  indignant  letter 
saying,  "If  the  votes  of  the  House  were  to  be  controlled 
by  the  direction  of  a  minister,  we  have  left  us  but  a 
shadow  of  liberty."  James  Otis  said:  "When  Lord 
Hillsborough  knows  that  we  will  not  rescind  our  acts, 
let  him  apply  to  Parliament  to  rescind  theirs.  Let 
Britain  rescind  their  measures,  or  they  are  lost  forever." 

Governor  Bernard,  in  compliance  with  the  ministry's 
order,  dissolved  the  House. 

In  the  summer  of  this  year  (1768)  the  merchants  of 
the  principal  colonies  formed  a  non-importation  agree 
ment,  particularly  with  regard  to  taxed  articles.  It  was 
now  fully  recognized  that  America  should  develop  its 
manufactures  in  order  to  be  economically  independent. 

Royal  Troops.  The  concomitant  acts  of  Parliament, 
especially  the  further  establishment  of  royal  troops  in 
the  colonies,  angered  the  people  even  more  than  did 
the  taxes.  The  colonial  assemblies  had  repeatedly 
protested  against  the  presence  of  these  troops  since 
their  introduction  at  the  time  of  the  Stamp  Act,  and 
on  constitutional  grounds  had  refused  to  vote  supplies 
for  their  maintenance.  New  York  had  especially 
offended  the  British  government  in  this  regard,  and  in 
July,  1767,  Parliament  had  inhibited  the  Assembly  of 
that  province  from  passing  any  act  whatsoever  until  it 
had  voted  for  supplies  to  the  troops.  This  was  called 
the  "Billeting  Act."  The  Assembly  subsequently 
complied  with  the  order,  and  was  reinstated  in  its 
powers.  On  the  rumor  that  new  troops  were  coming  to 
Boston,  a  convention  representing  ninety-six  Massa 
chusetts  towns  met  in  that  city  on  September  22,  1768, 
and  protested  against  such  coercion.  They  denied  that 
they  were  inspired  by  a  desire  for  independence. 


i774l        Massachusetts  vs.  Parliament          61 

At  this  time  the  people  of  Massachusetts  were 
aroused  against  the  Townshend  Taxes  and  the  coming 
of  new  troops  by  a  series  of  articles  appearing  in  the 
Boston  Gazette  over  the  signature  of  "  Hyperion."  The 
author  was  Josiah  Quincy,  2d,  an  able  young  lawyer 
of  the  town. 

The  most  eloquent  of  the  " Hyperion"  articles 
appeared  on  October  3,  1768,  shortly  after  the  Massa 
chusetts  anti-military  convention. 

In  the  manner  of  Dulany  in  the  case  of  the  Stamp 
Act,  Quincy  pleaded  with  the  colonial  patriots  to 
abstain  from  the  imported  luxuries,  especially  tea, 
which  were  taxed.  He  said: 

"He  who  cannot  conquer  the  little  vanity  of  his  heart, 
and  deny  the  delicacy  of  a  debauched  palate,  let  him  lay  his 
hand  upon  his  mouth,  and  his  mouth  in  the  dust."  x 

Quincy  was  especially  bitter  against  the  quartering 
on  the  colonies  of  royal  troops  to  enforce  the  Parlia 
mentary  acts. 

"Are  not  our  distresses  more  than  we  can  bear;  and,  to 
finish  all,  are  not  our  cities,  in  a  time  of  profound  peace, 
filled  with  standing  armies,  to  preclude  us  from  that  last 
solace  of  the  wretched — to  open  their  mouths  in  complaint, 
and  send  forth  their  cries  in  bitterness  of  heart?  " 

He  upheld  the  contentions  of  the  colonists  as  the 
constitutional  rights  of  Britons,  the  denial  of  which  by 
their  kinsmen  abroad  aggravated  the  oppression. 

JThe  classic  quality  of  the  italicized  passage  has  tempted  many 
American  orators  to  use  it  in  other  connections  as  if  it  were  original  with 
them — a  reprehensible  practice  that  has  caused  its  original  utterance 
to  be  ascribed  to  various  statesmen  other  than  Quincy,  notably  George 
E.  Pugh,  Senator  from  Ohio,  who  employed  the  figure  in  the  Democratic 
Presidential  Convention  at  Charleston,  S.  C.,  in  1860. 


62  American  Debate  [1767- 

"  Were  a  tyrant  to  conquer  us,  the  chains  of  slavery,  when 
opposition  should  become  useless,  might  be  supportable; 
but  to  be  shackled  by  Englishmen — by  our  equals — is  not  to 
be  borne!" 

The  theological  tone  had  not  yet  departed  from  our 
political  oratory.  Quincy  threatened  his  Calvinistic 
audience  with  the  pains  of  hell  hereafter  should  they 
submit  to  the  unjust  " whips  and  stripes"  inflicted  by 
their  "master"  on  earth — an  inferential  comparison  to 
his  Satanic  Majesty  and  his  minions  which  King 
George  and  his  ministers  evidently  did  not  relish,  and 
kept  in  mind  against  him,  for  some  years  later,  when 
Quincy  went  as  an  agent  of  Massachusetts  to  London, 
he  was  most  coolly  received  by  Lord  North,  the  Prime 
Minister  at  that  time. 

"  To  hope  for  the  protection  of  Heaven, "  said  the  devout 
orator,  "  without  doing  our  duty  is  to  mock  the  Deity." 
In  phrases  anticipating  those  of  Thomas  Paine,  really  the 
most  reverent  of  our  early  statesmen,  he  asked:  "Wherefore 
had  man  his  reason,  if  it  were  not  to  direct  him?  Wherefore 
his  strength,  if  it  be  not  his  protection?  With  the  smiles  of 
Heaven,  virtue,  unanimity,  and  firmness  will  ensure  success. 
While  we  have  justice  and  God  on  our  side,  tyranny,  spiri 
tual  or  temporal,  shall  never  ride  triumphant  in  a  land 
inhabited  by  Englishmen." 

Trial  of  Americans  in  England.  The  House  of  Lords, 
on  December  15,  1768,  passed  resolutions  censuring  the 
proceedings  at  Boston  as  subversive  of  his  Majesty's 
government,  and  manifesting  the  design  to  become 
independent  thereof.  In  February,  1769,  the  Commons 
ratified  these  resolutions,  and  requested  the  King  to 
direct  the  Governor  of  Massachusetts  to  report  on  the 
"treasons"  in  that  province,  in  order  that  the  accused 


i774l        Massachusetts  vs.  Parliament          63 

parties  might  be  tried  in  the  realm,  if  his  Majesty  saw 
fit.  This  was  the  revival  of  an  obsolete  act,  35  Henry 
VIII.  The  King  in  his  answer  to  the  Commons  indi 
cated  that  such  a  trial  was  his  intention.  The  haling 
thus  projected  of  American  patriots  to  England  on  the 
mere  suspicion  of  treason  was  regarded  by  the  colonists 
as  the  crowning  act  of  their  subjugation. 

Sketch  of  Adams.  It  is  in  place  here  to  give  a  sketch 
of  Samuel  Adams,  who  now  became  the  head  and  front 
of  defense  of  American  civil  liberty  as  represented  in 
Massachusetts,  and  the  rock  of  offense  to  the  British 
ministry,  as  represented  in  the  royal  government  of  that 
province.  Samuel  Adams  (it  is  significant  of  his 
popularity  with  the  common  people  that  he  was  called 
"Sam"  Adams)  was  born  at  Boston  in  1722.  His 
father,  bearing  the  same  name,  was  a  rich  man  of  great 
political  influence,  due  in  part  to  his  wealth,  but  far 
more  to  his  inventive  ingenuity  in  organizing  the  first 
"political  machine"  in  the  country.  This  was  the 
"caucus,"  an  association  of  political  workers  for  the 
purpose  of  privately  "slating"  men  for  office  to  be 
elected  by  the  "free  and  independent "  citizenry.  With 
about  twenty  men  of  this  class,  some  of  them  shipyard 
mechanics,  Samuel  Adams,  Sr.,  formed  a  "  Ca[u]lkers* 
Club,"  which  secretly  decided  what  names  were  to  be 
presented  to  the  town -meetings  of  Boston  as  proper 
persons  to  be  chosen  to  administer  the  affairs  of  the  city. 
By  February,  1763,  the  name  of  the  organization,  or  its 
successor,  had  been  corrupted,  or  rather  euphonized 
into  "Caucus  Club."1 

1  For'other,  and,  to  the  mind  of  the  author,  more  fanciful  etymologies 
of  the  term  "caucus, "  see  the  large  dictionaries.  For  the  development 
of  the  principle  of  the  caucus  in  American  cities  see  general  treatises  on 
municipal  government,  and  special  works,  such  as  The  History  of  Tarn- 


64  American  Debate  [1767- 

The  younger  Samuel  was  sent  to  Harvard,  from  which 
college  he  was  graduated  in  1740.  In  1743  he  took  his 
master's  degree,  choosing  as  the  subject  of  his  Latin 
thesis:  "Whether  it  be  lawful  to  resist  the  supreme 
magistrate  if  the  commonwealth  cannot  otherwise  be 
preserved, "  and  defending  the  affirmative.  In  choosing 
a  profession  he  preferred  law  to  the  ministry,  for  which 
his  parents  designed  him  (indeed,  he  remained  through 
life  a  strict  Calvinist),  but  he  compromised  with 
their  old-fashioned  prejudices  against  lawyers  by 
entering  into  mercantile  business.  Here  he  lost  the 
money  given  him  for  the  purpose.  He  then  entered 
into  partnership  with  his  father  in  a  brewery,  which 
was  a  rather  unsuccessful  venture.  At  the  same  time 
the  elder  Adams  lost  his  fortune  in  a  banking  enterprise, 
which  failed  owing  to  the  passage  of  an  act  of  Parliament 
forbidding  the  kind  of  incorporation  under  which  it  was 
organized.  Samuel  Adams,  therefore,  had  personal 
reasons  for  his  subsequent  fight  against  the  interference 
of  Parliament  in  American  affairs.  The  death  of  his 
father  soon  after  this  (in  1748)  left  Samuel  to  struggle 
alone  to  carry  on  the  poorly  paying  brewery.  In  1749 
he  married,  and  soon  had  an  increasing  family  to 
support.  However,  by  securing  the  position  of  tax- 
collector  in  Boston,  he  managed  to  make  a  living,  being 
subjected  the  while  to  the  taunts  of  the  Tory  wits,  who 
called  him  " Sammy  the  maltster"  and  "Sammy  the 
publican."  In  his  double  employment,  however,  he 
got  into  touch  with  the  common  people,  and  became  a 
power  in  town -meetings.  In  these,  with  the  high  pur- 

many  Hall,  by  Gustavus  Myers.  For  the  development  of  the  caucus  in 
State  and  Federal  government  see  Political  Parties  and  Party  Problems 
in  the  United  States,  by  James  Albert  Woodburn,  chap,  xi.,  and  the  books 
therein  mentioned. 


i774l         Massachusetts  vs.  Parliament          65 

pose  of  a  patriotic  statesman,  he  drafted  resolutions 
against  autocratic  authority,  and,  with  the  self-abne 
gation  of  a  shrewd  politician,  he  inspired  important 
persons,  who  might  not  otherwise  have  used  their 
influence,  to  support  these  with  arguments  which  he 
supplied  and  for  which  they  obtained  the  credit.  In 
this  manner  he  inducted  John  Hancock,  the  richest 
merchant  in  Boston,  into  politics.  Indeed,  there  is 
every  reason  to  believe  that  he  wrote  out  the  notable 
speech  which  Hancock  delivered  in  1774  on  the  anniver 
sary  memorial  of  the  "Boston  Massacre. " 

From  1765  to  1774  Adams  served  as  clerk  of  the 
Massachusetts  House  of  Representatives,  receiving  a 
small  salary,  which,  by  his  own  frugality  and  that  of  his 
wife  (his  first  wife  dying,  he  had  married  again  in  1764), 
sufficed  for  the  family  income. 

As  clerk  of  the  Assembly  he  was  in  the  best  of  all 
positions  to  influence  public  sentiment  in  resistance  to 
British  aggression  through  the  town -meetings,  and  to 
unite  the  action  of  these  by  systematized  correspond 
ence  with  patriot  leaders  all  over  the  province.  This 
device  of  the  "  committee  of  correspondence"  attracted 
particularly  the  hatred  of  the  Tories,  one  of  whom, 
Daniel  Leonard,  of  Taunton,  writing  under  the  pen 
name  of  "  Massachusettensis "  in  a  newspaper  con 
troversy  in  1774-5  with  John  Adams  ("Novanglus"), 
characterized  it  as  "an  invention  of  the  fertile  brain  of 
one  of  the  Whig  party's  agents  .  .  .  amenable  to  no 
one  .  .  .  the  foulest,  subtlest,  and  most  venomous 
serpent  that  ever  issued  from  the  eggs  of  sedition." 

John  Adams  replied : 

"  I  should  rather  call  it  the  ichneumon,  a  very  industrious 
and  useful  animal  which  was  worshiped  in  Egypt  because 


66  American  Debate  [1767- 

it  defended  the  country  from  the  ravages  of  the  crocodiles, 
whose  eggs  it  searched  out  and  crushed.  That  the  invention 
is  effective  is  clear  from  the  unlimited  wrath  of  the  Tories 
against  it,  and  from  the  gall  which  '  Massachusettensis ' 
discharges  upon  it.  And  its  inventor  is  one  to  whom  Amer 
ica  has  erected  a  statue  in  her  heart  for  his  integrity,  forti 
tude,  and  perseverance  in  her  cause." 

A  portrait  in  1770,  when  the  subject  was  forty-eight 
years  of  age,  made  by  the  famous  Boston  painter  of  his 
time,  John  Singleton  Copley,  presents  Samuel  Adams's 
physical  characteristics.  It  is  enforced  by  a  pen- 
portrait  given  by  the  biographer  and  great-grandson  of 
Adams,  William  V.  Wells,  who  describes  him  as  above 
the  medium  height,  of  florid  complexion,  with  dark  blue 
eyes.  He  was  careful  in  dress,  dignified  though  cordial 
in  manners,  being,  like  Lincoln,  a  great  story-teller; 
frugal;  scrupulously  honest  (although,  as  tax-collector, 
his  humane  spirit  in  not  pressing  claims  caused  him  to 
be  heavily  in  arrears  with  amounts  charged  against  him, 
and  hence  gave  occasion  to  the  Tories  to  call  him  a 
defaulter);  and  with  an  enormous  capacity  for  work, 
writing  under  many  pseudonyms  countless  patriotic 
contributions  to  the  press,  and  carrying  on  a  heavy 
correspondence  with  the  "friends  of  American  liberty" 
not  only  in  every  town  in  Massachusetts  but  through 
out  the  other  colonies.  A  physical  infirmity,  nervous 
trembling,  aided  him  in  moments  of  excitement  by 
impressing  spectators  with  a  sense  of  his  deep  feeling. 

Of  his  oratorical  abilities,  his  second  cousin  in  blood, 
and  his  " brother"  in  affectionate  association,  John 
Adams,  said  in  reminiscence : 

"  He  had  an  exquisite  ear  for  music,  and  a  charming  voice 
when  he  pleased  to  exert  it.  Yet  his  ordinary  speeches  .  .  . 


i774l         Massachusetts  vs.  Parliament          67 

exhibited  nothing  extraordinary;  but  upon  great  occasions, 
when  his  deeper  feelings  were  excited,  he  erected  himself,  or, 
rather,  nature  seemed  to  erect  him,  without  the  smallest 
symptom  of  affectation,  into  an  upright  dignity  of  figure 
and  gesture,  and  gave  a  harmony  to  his  voice  which  made  a 
strong  impression  on  spectators  and  auditors — the  more 
lasting  for  the  purity,  correctness,  and  nervous  elegance  of 
his  style." 

In  town -meetings  he  spoke  in  plain  language  suited 
to  his  hearers.  On  set  occasions,  with  scholars  in  the 
audience,  he  made  classical  allusions  with  great  apt 
ness. 

Jefferson,  while  comparing  him  to  his  disadvantage 
with  John  Adams  as  a  debater  (whom  Jefferson  con 
sidered  the  ideal  of  argumentative  speakers),  neverthe 
less  remarked  that  Samuel  Adams,  "although  not  of 
fluent  elocution,"  was  "so  rigorously  logical,  so  clear  in 
his  views,  abundant  in  good  sense,  and  master  always 
of  his  subject,  that  he  commanded  the  most  profound 
attention  in  an  assembly  by  which  the  froth  of  declama 
tion  was  heard  with  the  most  sovereign  contempt." 

As  a  writer  Samuel  Adams  developed  himself  by 
assiduous  practice  from  an  indifferent  newspaper 
contributor  to  a  polemic  of  "great  perfection,"  to 
quote  from  his  chief  antagonist,  the  Tory  Governor  of 
Massachusetts,  Thomas  Hutchinson.  Said  Hutchinson 
with  deep  personal  resentment : 

"  He  acquired  a  talent  of  artfully  and  fallaciously  insinuat 
ing  into  the  minds  of  his  readers  a  prejudice  against  the 
character  of  all  whom  he  attacked,  beyond  any  other  man 
I  ever  knew." 

It  was  said  that  Governor  Bernard,  who,  as  Hutchin 
son 's  predecessor,  was  the  victim  of  Adams's  less  per- 


68  American  Debate  In 

fected  skill,  used  to  exclaim:  "Damn  that  Adams! 
Every  dip  of  his  pen  stings  like  a  horned  snake." 

In  the  friendly  judgment  of  John  Adams,  as  after 
wards  demonstrated  by  Wells,  the  voluminous  writings 
of  Samuel  Adams,  if  collected,  "  would  throw  light  upon 
American  history  for  fifty  years, "  and  reveal  "a nervous 
simplicity  of  reasoning  and  eloquence  that  have  never 
been  rivaled  in  America." 

It  was,  however,  as  a  political  manager  that  Samuel 
Adams  was  supreme.  Says  James  K.  Hosmer1: 

"He  was  the  prince  of  canvassers,  the  very  king  of  the 
caucus,  of  which  his  father  was  the  inventor.  .  .  .  One 
hardly  knows  which  to  wonder  at  most,  the  astuteness  or 
the  self-sacrifice  with  which,  in  order  to  present  a  measure 
effectively,  or  to  humor  a  touchy  co-worker,  he  continually 
postpones  himself  while  he  gives  the  foreground  to  others." 

In  his  address  at  Concord,  Mass.,  in  1875,  on  the 
hundredth  anniversary  of  the  opening  battle  of  the 
Revolution,  George  William  Curtis  characterized  Sam 
uel  Adams  as  the  master-spirit  of  the  New  England 
town-meeting,  the  great  organizer  and  manipulator  of 
that  mighty  embodiment  of  popular  opinion  which 
conquered  the  Crown  and  the  Parliament  of  the  most 
powerful  Empire  on  earth. 

"  The  town-meeting  was  the  alarm-bell  with  which  he 
aroused  the  continent.  It  was  the  rapier  with  which  he 
fenced  with  the  ministry.  It  was  the  claymore  with  which 
he  smote  their  counsels.  It  was  the  harp  of  a  thousand 
strings  that  he  swept  into  a  burst  of  passionate  defiance,  or 
an  electric  call  to  arms,  or  a  proud  paean  of  exulting  triumph — 
defiance,  challenge,  and  exultation,  all  lifting  the  continent 
to  independence.  His  indomitable  will  and  command  of  the 

1  Samuel  Adams  in  American  Statesmen  Series,  pp.  363,  364. 


1774]        Massachusetts  vs.  Parliament          69 

popular  confidence  played  Boston  against  London,  the 
provincial  town -meeting  against  the  royal  Parliament, 
Faneuil  Hall  against  St.  Stephen's.  And,  as  long  as  the 
American  town-meeting  is  known,  its  great  genius  will  be 
revealed,  who,  with  the  town-meeting,  overthrew  an  Empire. 
So  long  as  Faneuil  Hall  stands,  Samuel  Adams  will  not 
want  his  most  fitting  monument,  and  when  Faneuil  Hall 
falls,  its  name,  with  his,  will  be  found  written,  as  with  a 
sunbeam,  upon  every  faithful  American  heart." 

Adams  carried  this  power  from  local  into  national 
affairs.  Said  Jefferson : 

"In  the  Eastern  States,  for  a  year  or  two  after  it  began,  he 
was  truly  the  Man  of  the  Revolution.  He  was  constantly 
holding  [in  Congress]  caucuses  of  distinguished  men  (among 
whom  was  R[ichard]  H[enry]  Lee),  at  which  the  generality 
of  the  measures  pursued  were  previously  determined  on, 
and  at  which  the  parts  were  assigned  to  the  different  actors 
who  afterwards  appeared  in  them." 

By  these  arts  Samuel  Adams,  more  than  any  other 
one  man,  secured  the  adoption  of  the  Declaration  of 
Independence,  and  therefore  it  was  fitting  that  he 
delivered  the  address  to  the  people  of  Philadelphia  on 
the  day  preceding  the  formal  signing  of  the  engrossed 
copy. 

On  March  18,  1769,  the  anniversary  of  the  repeal  of 
the  Stamp  Act,  an  appeal  to  the  "Sons  of  Liberty"  was 
found  posted  on  the  Liberty  Tree  at  Providence,  R.  I. 
It  was  published  also  that  same  morning  in  the  Provi 
dence  Gazette,  and  later  in  the  Boston  Gazette.  It  was 
signed  "A  Son  of  Liberty."  Samuel  Adams  was  the 
author.  It  was  possibly  the  first  threat  of  American 
independence.  It  read : 


70  American  Debate  [1767- 

"  When  I  consider  the  corruption  of  Great  Britain — their 
load  of  debt — their  intestine  divisions,  tumults,  and  riots — 
their  scarcity  of  provisions — and  the  contempt  in  which 
they  are  held  by  the  people  about  them ;  and  when  I  consider 
on  the  other  hand  the  state  of  the  American  colonies  with 
regard  to  the  various  climates,  soils,  produce,  rapid  popula 
tion,  joined  to  the  virtue  of  the  inhabitants — I  cannot  think 
but  that  the  conduct  of  Old  England  towards  us  may  be 
permitted  by  Divine  Wisdom  ...  for  hastening  a  period 
dreadful  to  Great  Britain." 

In  May  of  the  same  year  Francis  Bernard,  Governor 
of  Massachusetts,  convened  at  Boston  the  House  of 
Representatives,  which  had  been  suspended  from  its 
functions  now  more  than  a  year  for  its  circular  letter  to 
the  other  colonies.  The  House  refused  to  proceed  to 
business  under  duress  of  troops  in  the  city,  whereupon 
the  Governor  adjourned  it  to  Cambridge,  across  the 
Charles  River.  Thither  the  members  went  under  pro 
test.  When  the  Governor  urged  them  to  expedite 
their  action  in  order  to  save  time  and  expense,  Samuel 
Adams  voiced  the  sentiment  of  the  House  by  saying: 

"No  time  can  be  better  employed  than  in  the  preservation 
of  the  rights  derived  from  the  British  constitution.  .  .  . 
No  treasure  can  be  better  expended  than  in  securing  .  .  . 
liberty.  ..." 

Earlier  in  the  month  the  Virginia  House  of  Burgesses 
had  declared  that  the  transportation  of  Americans  to 
England  for  trial  would  be  "highly  derogatory  of  the 
rights  of  British  subjects,  as  thereby  the  inestimable 
privilege  of  trial  by  a  jury  from  the  vicinage,  as  well  as 
the  liberty  of  producing  witnesses  on  such  trial,  will  be 
taken  away  from  the  party  accused."  The  House  sent  a 
petition  to  the  King  on  the  subject. 


i774l         Massachusetts  vs.  Parliament  71 

News  reached  the  Massachusetts  House  of  the  action 
of  Virginia.  Thereupon  it  passed  resolutions  of  the 
same  purport.  These  caused  the  Governor  to  recall  a 
regiment  about  to  sail  to  Halifax,  and,  in  spite  of  the 
protest  of  Samuel  Adams  and  other  radicals,  the  House 
voted  to  modify  the  resolutions.  The  regiment  then 
departed. 

Governor  Bernard  then  demanded  that  the  House 
vote  for  supplies  to  the  troops  before  passing  other 
measures,  this  being  in  accordance  with  the  terms  of  the 
Billeting  Act.  The  House  refused  compliance,  and  was 
prorogued  in  July.  On  the  last  of  this  month  Bernard 
was  recalled  to  England,  ostensibly  to  advise  the 
ministry  on  colonial  affairs,  but  really  because  of  his 
inability  to  handle  the  Massachusetts  Legislature.  The 
British  government  demanded  that  the  General  Court 
(Legislature)  of  Massachusetts  vote  him  full  salary  for 
the  unexpired  portion  of  his  year  of  service.  This  the 
House  of  Representatives  indignantly  refused  to  do. 
On  Bernard's  departure,  Boston  made  holiday,  with 
the  ringing  of  bells,  roaring  of  cannon,  and  the  blazing 
of  a  great  bonfire  on  Fort  Hill  for  him  to  look  back  upon 
when  out  at  sea. 

Lieutenant-Governor  Thomas  Hutchinson  assumed 
the  gubernatorial  duties,  Bernard  being  still  nominal 
Governor,  and  was  appointed  Governor  two  years 
thereafter. 

Sketch  of  Hutchinson.  Thomas  Hutchinson,  the 
ablest  of  all  the  American  loyalists,  was  the  son  of  a 
wealthy  merchant  of  Boston.  He  was  graduated  from 
Harvard  in  1727,  and  for  several  years  thereafter 
devoted  himself  to  business.  In  1737  he  was  elected  to 
the  Massachusetts  House  of  Representatives,  serving 
until  1740,  and  from  1742  to  1749,  being  Speaker  the 


72  American  Debate  [1767- 

last  three  years.  He  made  a  special  study  of  finance, 
and  opposed  vigorously  the  unsound  "  Land  Bank, "  and 
the  inflated  issue  by  the  colony  of  bills  of  credit.  In 

1748  he  secured  the  passage  of  a  bill  for  redeeming  and 
canceling  the  outstanding  paper  currency.      One  of  his 
bitterest  opponents  on  the  question  of  colonial  rights, 
John  Adams,  in  1809  paid  this  tribute  to  his  financial 
ability: 

"If  I  was  the  witch  of  Endor  I  would  wake  the  ghost  of 
Hutchinson  and  give  him  absolute  power  over  the  currency 
of  the  United  States  .  .  .  provided  always  that  he  should 
meddle  with  nothing  [else] .  As  little  as  I  revere  his  memory, 
I  will  acknowledge  that  he  understood  the  subject  of  coin 
and  commerce  better  than  any  man  I  ever  knew  in  the 
country." 

Pity  it  is  that  Hutchinson  did  not  follow  his  first 
inclination  toward  the  colonial  cause  and  serve  in  the 
Congress  of  the  Revolution,  which  almost  lost  the  war 
by  unwise  financial  measures. 

He  was  a  member  of   the  Governor's  council  from 

1749  to  1756.    In  1754  he  was  a  delegate  to  the  Albany 
Federal  Convention,  and  served  on  the  committee,  of 
which   Franklin   was   chairman,    to   draft   a   plan   of 
colonial  union.    Appointed  judge  of  probate  in  1752, 
he  became  Chief- Justice  of  the  Superior  Court  of  Mas 
sachusetts  in  1761,  serving  till  1769,  at  the  same  time 
holding  the  office  of  Lieutenant-Governor,  to  which  he 
had  risen  in  1758.      Upon  the  appointment  of  General 
Gage  as  his  gubernatorial  successor,  he  went  to  England 
and  acted  as  adviser  in  American  affairs  to  the  King 
and  ministry.    Although  his  beautiful  home  and  entire 
fortune  were  confiscated  by  the  "rebels,"  he  counseled 
moderation  toward  them.     He  died  in  England.     In 


i774l         Massachusetts  vs.  Parliament          73 

argumentative  ability  he  compared  favorably  with  Lord 
Mansfield,  whose  praise  he  won,  although  his  testy  and 
vindictive  character  was  far  from  the  judicial  ideal. 

Contention  for  Self -Taxation.  The  British  ministry, 
alarmed  at  the  resistance  of  the  colonists,  sounded 
them  through  the  royal  governors  as  to  the  acceptance 
of  removal  of  the  taxes  on  all  articles  except  tea,  re 
taining  this  to  maintain  the  right  of  Parliament  to  tax 
America.  The  various  colonial  assemblies  repudiated 
the  offer,  as  not  being  a  concession  of  the  principle  of 
self -taxation  for  which  they  were  contending. 

On  October  4,  1769,  the  people  of  Boston  issued  "An 
Appeal  to  the  World, "  to  this  effect.  They  demanded 
the  repeal  of  all  taxes  for  revenue,  the  dissolution  of  the 
Board  of  Customs  Commissioners,  and  the  recall  of  the 
troops.  The  document  was  drafted  by  Samuel  Adams. 

In  November  the  merchants  of  Philadelphia  appealed 
to  the  merchants  of  London  to  use  their  influence  in 
securing  a  repeal  of  the  taxes,  as  oppressive  to  both 
parties  in  British- American  trade. 

Controversy  over  Patriotic  Associations.  The  in 
timidating  methods  adopted  by  the  patriotic  party  in 
America  to  force  their  fellows  into  associated  resistance 
to  Great  Britain  in  a  commercial  and  political  way  were 
opposed  during  1769  by  William  Henry  Drayton  (1742- 
1779)  of  Charleston,  S.  C.,  probably  the  most  learned 
man  in  the  colonies  in  law,  common  and  international, 
as  well  as  in  ancient  and  modern  history,  which  studies 
he  had  pursued  in  England  at  Westminster  School  and 
Oxford  University. 

In  a  series  of  trenchant  newspaper  articles  published 
over  the  signature  of  "Freeman,"  Drayton  attacked 
"the  mode  of  enforcing  associations"  which  he  deemed 
"encroachments  on  his  private  rights  of  freedom." 


74  American  Debate  [1767- 

This  led  him  into  a  controversy  with  Christopher 
Gadsden,  a  wealthy  merchant  of  Charleston,  who  was 
an  ardent  patriot  worthy  of  Drayton's  steel,  since  he 
read  seven  languages,  including  Latin,  Greek,  and 
Hebrew.  Gadsden's  arguments  were  similar  to  those 
of  Josiah  Quincy,  2d.* 

Gadsden  subsequently  became  an  officer  in  the 
Revolution.  As  Lieutenant-Go  vernor  of  South  Carolina 
he  signed  the  capitulation  of  Charleston  to  Sir  Henry 
Clinton  in  1780.  He  devoted  himself  to  the  end  of  his 
long  life  to  the  public  service,  winning  the  ardent  love  of 
South  Carolinians  and  the  respect  of  the  whole  country. 

Though  probably  because  of  Drayton's  position  in 
this  controversy  he  was  appointed  by  the  King  to  the 
privy  council  of  South  Carolina  in  1771,  and  in  1774  was 
chosen  by  Lieutenant-Governor  Bull  as  assistant  judge 
of  the  province,  his  patriotic  actions  in  the  latter 
capacity  demonstrated  that  he  had  taken  his  stand  on 
principle,  and  not  to  curry  favor  with  the  government. 

Ministry  of  Lord  North.  Parliament  met  on  Janu 
ary  9,  1770.  Soon  after  this  the  Duke  of  Graf  ton,  First 
Lord  of  the  Treasury,  resigned,  owing  to  the  general 
hatred  he  had  inspired,  which  was  fomented  by  the 
attacks  of  the  anonymous  "Junius"  (probably  Sir 
Philip  Francis).  Lord  North  (Frederick  North,  after 
wards  Earl  of  Guilford)  took  his  place,  acting  as  Prime 
Minister. 

We  condense  an  appreciation  of  North  from  the 
Encyclopedia  Britannica: 

Lord  North  was  known  as  a  skillful  and  ever-ready  debater 
and  was  popular  with  the  House  because  of  his  unruffled 

1  The  student  of  debate  should  note  that  the  issue  in  this  controversy 
is  also  that  in  trade  unionism. 


1774]     •   Massachusetts  vs.  Parliament          75 

temper  and  fund  of  humor.  These  qualities  kept  him  in 
office  as  Prime  Minister  during  the  long  period  when  party 
feeling  was  stronger  than  at  any  other  time  in  English 
history.  Even  his  bitterest  opponents  admired  him  per 
sonally.  Edmund  Burke,  in  his  Letter  to  a  Noble  Lord, 
commended  these  elements  in  the  character  of  North, 
together  with  his  general  knowledge  and  personal  disinterest, 
but  also  spoke  of  his  wanting  "something  of  the  vigilance 
and  spirit  of  command  which  the  times  required." 

Lord  North  remained  Prime  Minister  throughout 
the  Revolution. 

Though  in  the  speech  from  the  throne  early  in  1770 
Lord  North  indicated  that  he  intended  to  bring  America 
"prostrate  at  the  feet  of  the  ministry, "on  March  5  he 
introduced  a  bill  taking  off  all  duties  imposed  by  the 
act  of  1767  except  that  on  tea.  The  preamble,  uphold 
ing  the  right  to  tax  America,"  was  retained.  The  bill 
was  enacted  on  April  12. 

Boston  Massacre.  On  the  same  day  that  the  bill  was 
brought  before  Parliament  (March  5)  a  quarrel  arose 
in  Boston  between  the  royal  troops  and  a  body  of  citi 
zens  led  by  Crispus  At  tucks,  a  mulatto.  Four  of  the 
latter,  including  Attucks,  were  killed,  and  seven  were 
wounded  by  the  troops  firing  into  the  crowd,  under 
order  of  their  commander,  Captain  Thomas  Preston. 

On  the  day  following  the  "Boston  Massacre,"  as  the 
affray  was  called,  a  public  indignation  meeting  was 
held  in  Faneuil  Hall,  Boston,  which  demanded  the 
withdrawal  of  the  troops  from  the  city,  and  sent  a 
committee  to  present  the  demand  to  acting  Governor 
Hutchinson.  John  Hancock,  Samuel  Adams,  and  Dr. 
Joseph  Warren  were  members  of  this  committee.  They 
entered  the  council  chamber  of  the  State  House  where 
Hutchinson  sat  with  the  council  (twenty-eight  members) 


76  American  Debate  [1767- 

and  Lieutenant-Colonel  Dalrymple,  commander  of  the 
troops,  all,  except  the  officer,  who  was  in  uniform,  being 
imposingly  arrayed  in  large  white  wigs,  scarlet  coats, 
etc.,  says  John  Adams,  who  later  graphically  described 
the  scene. 

Samuel  Adams  was  spokesman  of  the  committee. 
He  quietly  asserted  the  illegality  of  quartering  troops 
on  the  town  in  times  of  peace,  without  consent  of  the 
Legislature,  and  prophesied  the  trouble  to  come  if  they 
were  not  removed.  Then  he  presented  the  demand  of 
the  town  meeting. 

Hutchinson  answered  as  calmly,  defending  the 
legality  and  asserting  the  necessity  of  the  presence  of 
the  troops,  but  disclaiming  that  they  were  under  his 
authority. 

Adams  declared  that  his  Excellency  was  in  error.  By 
the  charter  the  Governor  was  commander  of  the  military 
forces  within  the  province.  The  people  must  be  obeyed, 
or  fatal  consequences  would  ensue. 

Hutchinson  insisted  that  the  order  of  General  Thomas 
Gage,  commander  of  the  troops  in  America  with  head 
quarters  in  New  York,  must  be  obtained.  However,  the 
council  and  Lieutenant-Colonel  Dalrymple  at  length 
signified  their  willingness  to  remove  the  troops  by  the 
end  of  the  month.  The  people  in  the  town  meeting 
were  informed  of  the  acting  Governor's  solitary  posi 
tion,  and  sent  word  that  he  must  give  way  or  leave  the 
province.  He  then  formally  requested  Dalrymple  to 
remove  the  troops,  and  the  committee  returned  with  the 
report  of  this  to  the  town  meeting,  which  thereupon 
dissolved. 

The  troops  left  the  city  in  accordance  with  the 
agreement.  The  British  ministry  was  incensed  at  the 
action  of  the  authorities,  civil  and  military,  in  bowing 


1774]        Massachusetts  vs.  Parliament          77 

to  what  the  ministry  called,  in  the  slang  of  the  time, 
the  "bully"  (i.e.,  "bluff")  of  the  colonials,  and  Lord 
North  thereafter  was  wont  to  refer  to  the  regiments 
removed  (the  I4th  and  2 9th)  as  the  "Sam  Adams 
regiments." 

In  the  fall,  Captain  Preston  and  several  of  the  soldiers 
in  the  "massacre"  were  tried  for  murder,  but,  largely 
owing  to  the  eloquence  of  their  counsel,  John  Adams 
and  Josiah  Quincy,  2d,  they  were  acquitted,  with  the 
exception  of  two  privates,  who  were  convicted  of 
manslaughter,  but,  on  pleading  "benefit  of  the  clergy," 
were  let  off  with  branding  upon  the  hand  in  open  court. 

The  arguments  of  Adams  and  Quincy  are  extant  in  an 
official  report  of  the  trial  (1770).  The  speech  of  Robert 
Treat  Paine,  the  prosecutor,  was  not  preserved. 

The  anniversary  of  the  "Boston  Massacre,"  was 
observed  annually  until  1783.  The  orations  upon  the 
early  occasions  were  daringly  inflammatory,  in  view  of 
the  presence  of  British  troops  at  the  meetings,  the 
addresses  by  John  Hancock  and  Dr.  Joseph  Warren 
being  notably  so. r 

Intercolonial  Correspondence.  For  a  year  or  so 
opposition  to  the  Townshend  Act  as  modified  by  Lord 
North,  and  to  the  proposal  to  try  in  England  colonials 
suspected  of  treason,  which,  though  not  enforced,  was 
held  as  a  threat  by  the  British  ministry,  remained 
quiescent  in  America.  In  1772,  however,  the  fear  of 
enforcement  of  the  latter  was  aroused  by  the  Parliamen 
tary  inquiry  which  followed  the  burning  in  June  of  that 
year  of  the  revenue  schooner  Gaspee  while  endeavoring 
to  suppress  illegal  trade  in  Narragansett  Bay.  About 
the  same  time  Parliament  provided  for  the  payment  by 

1  These  orations  are  found  in  various  collections  of  American  elo 
quence. 


78  American  Debate  [1767- 

the  Massachusetts  House  of  Representatives  of  the  sal 
aries  of  the  Governor  and  judges  of  the  Superior  Court, 
who  were  appointees  of  the  Crown.  These  measures 
led  to  the  revival  of  intercolonial  correspondence  for 
united  defense  of  American  rights,  Massachusetts  and 
Virginia  heading  the  movement.  Samuel  Adams  de 
signed  the  Massachusetts  committee  of  correspondence 
to  act  in  conjunction  with  town  meetings  as  the  virtual 
popular  government  of  the  province.  He  wrote  fre 
quent  letters  in  the  press  on  the  subject.  One  of  them 
(on  October  5,  1772)  concludes: 

"Let  associations  and  combinations  be  everywhere  set 
up  to  consult,  and  recover  our  just  rights. 

"'The  country  claims  our  active  aid. 
Then  let  us  roam;  and,  where  we  find  a  spark 
Of  public  virtue,  blow  it  into  flame.' " 

Controversy  over  Charter  Rights.  Samuel  Adams 
was  also  leader  in  a  controversy  with  Hutchinson, 
now  Governor  of  Massachusetts,  over  Parliamentary 
authority  in  the  colony.  Hutchinson  convened  the 
House  of  Representatives  on  January  6,  1773,  and  sent 
to  it  a  forcible  argumentative  message  on  the  subject. 

This  authority,  he  said,  had  never  been  denied  until  the 
Stamp  Act.  The  grants  and  immunities  in  the  two  Massa 
chusetts  charters  (under  Elizabeth  and  James)  were  not  to 
be  taken  as  relieving  the  province  from  Parliamentary 
supremacy,  but  as  merely  an  assurance  by  the  Crown  to  the 
first  settlers  and  their  descendants  that  they  had  not  become 
aliens  through  their  necessary  relinquishment  of  representa 
tion  in  Parliament,  which  they  could  resume  on  return  to 
Great  Britain,  but  that  they  remained  free  British  subjects. 
If  the  supremacy  were  disavowed,  this  would  be  tantamount 
to  independence,  because  there  could  not  be  two  independ- 


1774)         Massachusetts  vs.  Parliament  79 

ent  legislatures  in  the  same  state.  Independence  would  be 
disastrous  to  their  liberties,  since  it  would  expose  them  to 
attacks  of  foreign  powers. 

This  message  was  widely  circulated  in  the  other 
colonies  and  even  in  England,  everywhere  producing  a 
profound  impression.  Tories  on  both  sides  of  the  sea, 
including  Lord  Mansfield,  called  it  unanswerable. 

The  Massachusetts  House  appointed  a  committee 
with  Samuel  Adams  at  its  head  to  reply  to  it.  It 
reported  on  January  22,  1773. 

The  reply  analyzed  the  charters,  and  showed  that  these 
did  not  imply  the  supremacy  of  Parliament — that  Parlia 
ment  had  nothing  to  do  with  the  provisions  in  them,  the 
Crown  alone  giving  the  grants.  If  the  settlers  in  removing 
to  America  preserved  their  British  rights,  they  and  their 
descendants  held  one  of  these,  which  was  the  right  to  be 
governed  by  laws  in  which  they  had  a  voice. 

The  House  of  Representatives  accepted  the  alterna 
tive  propounded,  that,  if  the  colonists  were  not  under 
the  authority  of  Parliament,  they  were  independent— 
at  least  in  legislation.  That  this  was  the  fact,  they 
asserted.  As  to  disasters  resulting  from  this  state,  they 
said  that  they  feared  them  less  than  despotism. 

This  reply  so  greatly  strengthened  the  patriots  in 
their  course  that  Hutchinson  was  sorry  he  had  opened 
the  discussion,  especially  as  he  was  rebuked  therefor 
by  influential  friends  of  the  government  in  England. 
He  wrote  to  the  British  colonial  secretary,  the  Earl  of 
Dartmouth  (William  Legge),  that  he  did  not  intend 
ever  to  meet  the  assembly  again. 

"  Your  lordship  very  justly  observes  that  a  nice  distinction 
on  civil  rights  is  far  above  the  reach  of  the  bulk  of  mankind 
to  comprehend." 


8o  American  Debate  [1767- 

Hutchinson  prorogued  the  House  on  March  6,  1773, 
after  a  dispute  with  it  about  the  salaries  of  the  Superior 
Court,  which  Samuel  Adams  contended  should  be  paid 
by  Great  Britain,  since  the  British  government  had 
made  the  court  independent  of  the  province.  The 
House's  committee  of  correspondence,  however,  contin 
ued  its  activities,  and  the  Governor  in  May  proclaimed 
the  King's  disapprobation  of  this  virtual  assembly  sit 
ting  during  recesses  of  the  Assembly  proper.  The  assem 
bly  replied  that  the  Crown  officers  corresponded  at  all 
times,  and  that,  owing  to  the  proroguing  of  the  Legisla 
ture,  the  House  must  do  so  in  recess  or  not  at  all — that 
it  was  only  fair  that  the  people  should  present  their 
grievances  to  the  King  in  order  to  combat  the  misinfor 
mation  supplied  by  the  Crown  officers. 

In  the  meantime  Dr.  Franklin,  agent  of  Massachusetts 
in  London,  had  obtained  in  an  unknown  manner  six 
private  letters  sent  by  Governor  Hutchinson  to  Eng 
land  as  well  as  letters  from  various  Crown  officers  in 
the  colony.  The  Massachusetts  Assembly  published 
these  in  a  pamphlet.  In  Hutchinson's  letters  appeared 
such  expressions  as : 

"There  must  be  an  abridgment  of  what  are  called  English 
liberties." 

"In  a  remove  from  a  state  of  nature  to  the  most  perfect 
state  of  government  there  must  be  a  great  restraint  of 
natural  liberty." 

' '  I  doubt  whether  it  is  possible  to  project  a  system  of  govern 
ment  in  which  a  colony,  three  thousand  miles  distant  from  the 
parent  state,  shall  enjoy  all  the  liberty  of  the  parent  state." 

For  his  part  in  this  publication  of  private  corre 
spondence  Franklin,  who  had  been  a  social  favorite,  was 
ostracized  by  the  "best  people"  of  London. 


1774]        Massachusetts  vs.  Parliament  81 

On  June  23,  1773,  the  Assembly  petitioned  the 
ministry  to  remove  from  office  Governor  Hutchinson 
and  Lieutenant-Governor  Andrew  Oliver,  who  had 
written  some  of  the  obnoxious  letters.  The  memorial 
was  disregarded. 

The  Boston  Tea-Party.  The  East  India  Company, 
early  in  1773,  appealed  to  the  British  government  for 
relief  from  the  loss  occasioned  by  the  transfer  of  Ameri 
can  trade  in  tea  largely  to  Holland.  In  response  to  this 
in  May  of  that  year  the  ministry  procured  an  act  of 
Parliament  permitting  the  Company  to  export  their 
teas  to  America  with  a  drawback  of  all  duties  previously 
paid  in  England,  thus  rendering  the  price  to  the  colo 
nists  cheaper  than  that  of  Dutch  teas.  It  was  hoped 
that  this  would  induce  the  Americans  to  pay  the  small 
nominal  duty  on  the  English  article,  and  to  resume  its 
importation. 

The  Massachusetts  committee  of  correspondence 
warned  the  country  against  taking  advantage  of  this 
insidious  act,  so  apt  in  the  end  to  destroy  the  freedom  of 
trade  in  the  colonies.  They  realized  that  cutting  off 
competition  by  lowering  price  is  the  first  step  in  estab 
lishing  a  monopoly. * 

The  manner  in  which  the  colonists  from  Boston  to 
Charleston  treated  the  tea-ships  is  familiar  to  all 
readers  of  the  school  histories. 

Parliamentary  Acts  against  Massachusetts.  On 
March  7,  1774,  report  of  the  " Boston  Tea-Party"  was 
laid  before  Parliament  by  the  King,  with  a  recommenda 
tion  for  drastic  action  "to  secure  the  execution  of  the 
laws,  and  the  just  dependence  of  the  colonies  on  the 
Crown  and  Parliament  of  Great  Britain.'* 

On  March  31  a  bill  was  enacted  interdicting  com- 

1 A  point  in  the  Trust  question. 
6 


82  American  Debate  [1767- 

mercial  intercourse  with  Boston,  and  prohibiting  after 
June  I  the  landing  or  shipping  goods  at  that  port. 
On  May  20  by  another  act  Massachusetts  was  deprived 
of  the  most  important  of  its  charter  rights,  the  selec 
tion  of  the  Council  being  transferred  from  the  House 
of  Representatives  to  the  Crown,  the  towns  being 
deprived  of  the  selection  of  jurors,  and  all  town  meetings 
but  the  stated  annual  one  in  March  or  May  being  pro 
hibited  except  at  the  call  of  the  Governor.  Soon  after 
this  a  supplementary  act  was  passed  permitting  the 
Governor,  with  the  advice  of  the  Council,  to  send  per 
sons  suspected  of  sedition  to  another  colony  or  to  Great 
Britain  for  trial.  These  bills  were  vigorously  opposed 
in  both  Houses  of  Parliament.  Colonel  Barre  in  the 
Commons  charged  the  Government  with  changing  its 
ground,  becoming  the  aggressor  instead  of  the  aggrieved. 
He  advised  the  extension  of  the  olive  branch  instead  of 
the  sword,  the  repeal  of  oppressive  laws  instead  of  their 
imposition.  He  said  that  the  colonists  were  Britons 
like  themselves,  susceptible  of  being  flattered  into  any 
thing,  but  too  stubborn  to  be  driven.  The  first  step 
toward  making  them  contribute  to  British  needs  was 
to  reconcile  them  to  British  government. 

General  Thomas  Gage  was  appointed  Governor  of 
Massachusetts.  He  arrived  in  Boston  in  May,  1774, 
together  with  the  Port  Bill — as  the  act  closing  the  city's 
commerce  was  called.  The  citizens  politely  received 
their  new  executive,  but  in  a  popular  meeting  resolved 
against  the  bill  as  an  act  the  "impolicy,  injustice,  in 
humanity,  and  cruelty"  of  which  exceeded  all  their 
powers  of  expression,  leaving  it  therefore  to  the  "  cen 
sure  of  the  world." 

They  also  expressed  the  opinion  that,  if  all  the 
colonies  would  agree  to  stop  all  trade  with  Great  Britain 


i774l        Massachusetts  vs.  Parliament  83 

till  the  Port  Bill  was  rescinded,  this  would  prove  the 
salvation  of  American  liberty. 

While  the  Bostonians  were  suffering  from  the  loss  of 
their  commerce  the  act  depriving  them  also  of  their 
charter  rights  arrived,  arousing  their  indignation  in  an 
even  greater  degree.  The  wrath  of  the  people  was 
especially  directed  against  Governor  Gage's  appointees 
as  councilors,  and  these,  on  account  of  the  menacing 
attitude  of  the  people,  either  resigned,  or  sought  protec 
tion  in  Boston  under  the  eyes  of  the  Governor.  The 
jurors  appointed  under  the  act  refused  to  qualify,  and 
in  some  of  the  counties  of  the  province  the  people  would 
not  permit  the  judges  so  chosen  to  sit,  by  crowding  the 
court  rooms  and  their  entrances,  and  refusing  to  obey 
the  orders  of  the  sheriffs  to  make  way  for  these  appoint 
ees.  They  declared,  in  phrases  that  ring  like  Magna 
Charta: 

"  They  knew  of  no  court,  nor  any  other  establishment,  in 
dependent  of  the  ancient  laws  and  usages  of  their  country, 
and  to  none  other  would  they  submit  or  give  way  on  any 
account." 


CHAPTER  V 

CONGRESS  VS.  PARLIAMENT 

1774-1775 

Sympathy  of  Virginia  with  Massachusetts — Virginia  Suggests  Continen 
tal  Congress— Jefferson's  Instructions  to  Virginia  Delegates — 
John  Adams  Prophesies  Revolution — Congress  Meets — Debate  on 
Representation  of  States  in  Congress  between  Patrick  Henry  [Va.], 
Joseph  Galloway  [Pa.],  John  Jay  [N.  Y.],  Edward  Rutledge  [S.  C.]— 
Addresses  of  the  Congress — Sketches  of  Jay  and  John  Dickinson 
[Pa.],  their  Drafters— The  "Suffolk  Resolves  "—Measures  of 
Colonial  Defense — Interview  of  Joseph  Quincy,  2d,  with  Lord 
North — Speech  of  Lord  Chatham  on  Removal  of  Troops  from 
Boston — His  Plan  of  Conciliation  is  Rejected — Restriction  of 
Colonial  Trade  and  Fisheries — Dr.  Franklin's  Plan  of  Conciliation 
is  Rejected— Lord  North's  Plan  is  Adopted— Plans  of  David  Hart 
ley  and  Edmund  Burke  are  Rejected — Sketch  of  Burke — Burke 's 
Speech  "On  Conciliation  with  America" — His  Speech  "On  the 
Right  to  Tax  America" — Speech  of  James  Wilson  [Pa.]  "In  Vindi 
cation  of  the  Colonies" — Sketch  of  Wilson — Debate  in  the  Virginia 
Convention  on  Patrick  Henry's  Militant  Resolutions:  Henry  vs. 
Richard  Bland,  Benjamin  Harrison,  Robert  Carter  Nicholas,  and 
Edmund  Pendleton — Sketches  of  Harrison,  Nicholas,  and  Pendleton 
— Resolutions  Passed. 

THE  contest  between  Parliament  and  Massachusetts, 
in  which  the  other  colonies  had  aided  their  New 
England  sister  in  unorganized  fashion,  now  broadened 
and  strengthened  into  a  concerted  national  opposition 
to  the  British  legislature  and  the  Crown  its  supporter, 
although  the  politic  patriots  maintained  the  legal 

84 


[1774-1775]     Congress  vs.  Parliament  85 

fiction  that  the  "King  could  do  no  wrong" — that  he 
was  "badly  advised"  by  his  ministers,  and  that  these 
therefore,  with  Parliament,  were  the  parties  guilty  of 
the  unconstitutional  acts  against  American  rights. 

The  First  Continental  Congress.  The  people  of  the 
other  colonies  had  shown  their  sympathy  with  Massa 
chusetts — Boston  in  particular — by  sending  thither 
provisions  and  money.  The  Virginia  House  of  Bur 
gesses  appointed  June  I,  1774,  the  date  when  the  port  of 
Boston  was  to  be  closed,  as  a  fast  day,  when  the  people 
of  Virginia  were  to  beseech  God  to  avert  the  "heavy 
calamity  which  threatened  destruction  to  their  civil 
rights  and  the  evils  of  a  civil  war,"  and  to  give  them 
"one  heart  and  one  mind  to  oppose  by  all  just  and 
proper  means  every  injury  to  American  rights." 
Colonel  George  Washington  stated  in  the  House  that 
he  was  ready  to  raise  at  his  own  expense  one  thousand 
men  and  march  to  the  relief  of  Boston.  The  House 
instructed  the  Virginia  Committee  of  Correspondence 
to  recommend  to  the  other  colonies  an  annual  Congress 
to  protect  the  common  interest. 

At  an  adjourned  session  of  the  Massachusetts  House 
of  Representatives  held  at  Salem  in  June,  Samuel 
Adams  moved  that  the  colony  send  representatives 
to  such  a  Congress,  which  he  suggested  should  be  held 
in  Philadelphia  on  the  first  of  September;  Adams's 
motion  was  adopted,  and  he  and  John  Adams,  with 
Robert  Treat  Paine,  Thomas  Cushing,  and  James 
Bowdoin,  were  chosen  as  delegates.  Bowdoin  was 
kept  from  attending  the  Congress  by  the  sickness  of  his 
wife.  Governor  Gage,  hearing  of  what  was  going  on 
in  the  House,  sent  his  secretary  to  dissolve  the  Assembly. 
The  House  refused  admission  to  the  officer,  who  there 
upon  issued  the  proclamation  from  the  steps  of  the 


86  American  Debate  [1774- 

hall.  The  House  then  completed  its  business,  and  the 
members  dispersed  never  again  to  assemble  under 
royal  authority. 

The  other  colonies  accepted  the  appointment  of  time 
and  place  for  the  Congress,  and  elected  delegates  to  it. 
The  Virginia  Burgesses,  in  addition,  formed  a  non 
importation  association,  and  agreed  that,  if  colonial 
grievances  were  not  redressed  by  August  10,  1775,  they 
would  not  thereafter  export  to  Great  Britain  tobacco  or 
any  other  product. 

Thomas  Jefferson,  a  member  of  the  House,  drafted 
instructions  for  the  delegates  to  the  Congress,  which 
maintained  that  the  " Parliament  of  Virginia"  had  as 
much  right  to  legislate  for  Great  Britain  as  the  British 
Parliament  had  for  Virginia.  They  were  not  adopted 
(Patrick  Henry,  to  whom  Jefferson  had  intrusted  them, 
failing  for  some  reason  to  present  them),  yet,  being 
published,  they  were  circulated  throughout  all  the 
colonies,  and  even  in  England,  where  Edmund  Burke 
reprinted  them  with  additions  and  favorable  comments 
of  his  own.  This  caused  the  British  government  to  list 
for  "attainder"  Jefferson  along  with  Samuel  Adams, 
Hancock,  and  other  leading  American  patriots. 

Though  many  of  the  delegates  to  the  Congress, 
notably  John  Dickinson,  were  desirous  and  hopeful  of 
coming  to  honorable  terms  with  Great  Britain,  others, 
such  as  John  Adams,  did  not  delude  themselves  with 
this  anticipation.  In  conversing  with  his  cousin 
Samuel  Adams  soon  after  his  appointment,  John  said : 

"I  suppose  we  must  go  to  Philadelphia  and  enter  into 
non-importation,  non-consumption,  and  non-exportation 
agreements;  but  they  will  be  of  no  avail;  we  shall  have  to 
resist  by  force." 


i775l  Congress  vs.  Parliament  87 

It  was  with  this  conviction  that  he  said  to  a  friend: 
"As  to  my  fate  the  die  is  cast,  the  Rubicon  is  passed — 
and,  sink  or  swim,  live  or  die,  to  survive  or  perish  with 
my  country  is  my  unalterable  resolution." J 

The  first  Continental  Congress,  as  the  body  was 
thereafter  denominated,  convened  at  Philadelphia 
promptly  upon  the  day  appointed,  September  i,  1774, 
meeting  in  Carpenter's  Hall.  Delegates  from  all  the 
colonies  but  Georgia  were  present.  Peyton  Randolph, 
leader  of  the  Virginia  delegation,  was  unanimously 
elected  President. 

After  appointment  of  committees  to  draft  various 
papers,  a  declaration  of  rights,  addresses  to  the  King 
and  the  British  people,  etc.,  the  Congress  sent  a  letter 
to  Governor  Gage  of  Massachusetts  protesting  against 
the  fortifications  he  had  raised  around  Boston  to  shut 
off  communication  with  that  city.  It  then  approved  of 
the  opposition  of  the  people  of  Massachusetts  to  the 
late  acts  of  Parliament,  and  promised  united  resistance 
by  America  to  the  execution  of  these  by  force. 

On  October  14  it  adopted  the  Declaration  of  Rights. 2 
This  affirmed  that  Americans  by  "the  immutable  laws 
of  nature,"  "the  principles  of  the  English  constitu 
tion,"  and  the  "charters  or  compacts"  of  the  several 
colonies  had  the  following  rights  which  could  not  be 
abrogated  or  abridged  without  their  consent : 

I .     To  "  life,  liberty,  and  property." 

2  and  3.  To  all  the  immunities  of  Englishmen  at  home 
which  had  been  granted  the  ancestors  of  the  colonists  on 
emigration  to  America. 

1  This  utterance  in  altered  form  Daniel  Webster  used  in  his  °  Sup 
posed  Speech  of  John  Adams  on  the  Declaration  of  Independence." 

a  For  unabridged  text  see  Great  Debates  in  American  History,  vol.  i.f 
p.  88. 


88  American  Debate 

4.  To  participate  in  legislation  affecting  their  interests, 
and,  since  they  were  not  represented  in  Parliament,  to 
have  exclusive  power  of  such  legislation  in  their  provincial 
assemblies,  subject  to  royal  veto,  exercised  in  a  manner 
heretofore  accepted,  on  all  matters  of  internal  policy  and 
taxation,  except  duties  laid  by  the  British  government  for 
regulation  of  trade  to  consolidate  the  commercial  interests 
of  the  Empire. 

5  and  6.  To  enjoy  all  the  advantages  of  English  com 
mon  law,  especially  trial  by  a  jury  of  their  peers  of  the 
vicinity. 

7.  To  the  immunities  granted  by  royal  charters  and 
secured  by  provincial  codes. 

8.  Peaceably  to  assemble,  and  petition  for  redress  of 
grievances. 

9.  To  be  free  from  a  standing  army  in  times  of  peace. 

10.  To  have  their  popular  houses  in  the  various  assem 
blies  independent  of  those  appointed  during  pleasure  by  the 
Crown. 

All  the  sections  were  unanimously  approved  except 
number  4,  on  which  there  was  much  debate,  the 
Massachusetts  delegates  opposing  the  admission  of  the 
right  of  Great  Britain  to  tax  the  colonies  in  any  manner 
whatsoever,  for  their  experience  had  taught  them  that 
there  was  no  real  distinction  between  "internal"  and 
"external"  taxes.1 

This  Declaration  of  Rights  was  largely  based  on  a 
"Bill  of  Rights, "  submitted  for  the  consideration  of  the 
"High  Court  of  Congress"  by  William  Henry  Dray  ton 
of  South  Carolina.  Drayton  was  removed  from  his 
office  because  of  the  publication  of  this  pamphlet.  This 
made  him  the  most  popular  as  well  as  influential  man 

1  "Politics  makes  strange  bedfellows."  Here  were  the  Massachusetts 
Whigs  adopting  the  contention  of  the  British  Tories  such  as  Lord  Mans 
field,  though  with  a  different  purpose  and  effect. 


i77sl  Congress  vs.  Parliament  89 

in  his  colony,  and  in  1775  he  was  elected  president  of 
the  provincial  convention. 

Non-importation  and  non-exportation  agreements 
were  adopted  by  Congress,  to  come  into  force  on 
September  10,  1775,  in  case  the  acts  complained  of 
were  not  repealed  by  that  date. 

The  Congress  was  ordered  to  continue  so  long  as 
these  acts  were  in  force. 

Lord  Chatham  declared  that  he  had  studied  the 
constitutions  of  the  ancient  democracies,  "yet  for 
solidity  of  reasoning,  force  of  sagacity,  and  wisdom  of 
conclusion,  no  body  of  men  could  stand  in  preference 
to  this  Congress." 

The  speeches  made  in  this,  the  most  important 
national  assembly  in  our  country's  history  (for  it  made 
inevitable  the  more  spectacular  one  which  declared  our 
independence)  have  unfortunately  not  been  preserved. 
The  loss  of  Patrick  Henry's  speech  at  the  opening  of  the 
Congress,  on  the  method  of  voting,  whether  by  colonies, 
by  delegates,  or  by  the  interests  represented,  is  es 
pecially  deplorable,  for  it  was  the  one  which  gave  him 
a  national  reputation.  However,  an  account  of  its 
deliverance  has  come  down  to  us  by  one  who  was 
present : 

"Mr.  Henry  rose  slowly,  as  if  borne  down  by  the  weight 
of  the  subject,  and,  after  faltering,  according  to  his  habit, 
through  a  most  impressive  exordium,  he  launched  gradually 
into  a  recital  of  the  colonial  wrongs.  Rising,  as  he  advanced, 
with  the  grandeur  of  his  subject,  and  glowing  at  length  with 
all  the  majesty  and  expectation  of  the  occasion,  his  speech 
seemed  more  than  that  of  mortal  man.  There  was  no  rant, 
no  rhapsody,  no  labor  of  the  understanding,  no  straining  of 
the  voice,  no  confusion  of  the  utterance.  His  countenance 
was  erect,  his  eye  steady,  his  action  noble,  his  enunciation 


90  American  Debate  [1774- 

clear  and  firm,  his  mind  poised  on  its  center,  his  views  of 
his  subject  comprehensive  and  great,  and  his  imagination 
coruscating  with  a  magnificence  and  a  variety  which  struck 
even  that  assembly  with  amazement  and  awe.  He  sat 
down  amid  murmurs  of  astonishment  and  applause ;  and,  as 
he  had  been  before  proclaimed  the  greatest  orator  of  Vir 
ginia,  he  was  now,  on  every  hand,  admitted  to  be  the  first 
orator  of  America." 

One  fragment  of  the  speech  has  been  preserved.  It 
is  the  first  breathing  of  the  national  spirit  which  would 
disregard  State  lines  when  the  interests  of  the  country 
are  at  stake.  Arguing  for  voting  by  delegates,  a  manner 
which,  despite  Henry's  eloquence,  was  negatived  in  favor 
of  voting  by  colonies,  he  said : 

"Fleets  and  armies  and  the  present  state  of  things  show 
that  the  government  is  dissolved.  Where  are  your  land 
marks — your  boundaries  or  colonies?  We  are  in  a  state  of 
nature!  All  distinctions  are  thrown  down;  all  America  is 
thrown  into  one  mass.  The  distinctions  between  Virgin 
ians,  Pennsylvanians,  New  Yorkers,  and  New  Englanders 
are  no  more.  I  am  not  a  Virginian,  but  an  American." 

It  would  be  a  service  to  American  patriotism  as  well 
as  to  the  literature  of  eloquence  if  a  master  orator,  by  a 
study  of  Henry's  style  and  sentiments  and  with  the  aid 
of  the  above  description  and  fragment,  would  write  a 
"Supposed  Speech  of  Patrick  Henry  at  the  Opening  of 
the  First  Continental  Congress  "  in  the  manner  in  which 
Daniel  Webster  so  ably  constructed  the  "Supposed 
Speech  of  John  Adams  on  the  Declaration  of  Independ 
ence."  Henry's  eloquence  was  more  effective,  later  in 
the  Congress,  when  his  democratic  opposition  defeated  a 
pretorian  plan  of  union  of  the  colonies  proposed  by 
Joseph  Galloway,  a  wealthy  lawyer  of  Philadelphia,  and 


i775l  Congress  vs.  Parliament  91 

supported  by  John  Jay  of  New  York,  Edward  Rutledge 
of  South  Carolina  (both  of  them  fine  orators  and  strong 
debaters),  and  other  conservatives. 

The  plan  was  similar  to  Franklin's  Albany  Plan  of 
Union  in  I754.1 

It  provided  for  a  President-General,  appointed  by 
the  Crown,  as  the  executive,  and  a  grand  council  of 
representatives,  chosen  by  the  colonial  assemblies,  as 
the  legislature.  The  council  was  to  meet  annually  and 
to  have  sole  control  over  internal  colonial  affairs,  its 
other  acts  being  subject  to  review  by  Parliament. 
Henry  objected  to  the  plan  as  recognizing  Parliament's 
right  to  rule  the  colonies,  which  he  emphatically 
denied.  His  vehemence  carried  Congress  against  the 
proposal.  Later,  all  reference  to  it  was  expunged  from 
the  record.  Galloway  afterwards  justified  the  sus 
picion  that  he  was  secretly  acting  in  the  interests  of 
Great  Britain  by  turning  Tory. 

The  Congress  adopted  an  Address  to  the  British 
People  and  an  Address  to  the  King.  The  former  was 
drafted  by  John  Jay,  of  New  York.  Thomas  Jefferson, 
before  he  learned  the  name  of  the  author,  gave  it 
Hubertian  praise  as  "a  production  certainly  of  the 
finest  pen  in  America." 

Sketch  of  Jay.  John  Jay  was  a  native  of  New  York 
City,  of  Huguenot  ancestry.  He  was  graduated  from 
King's  College  (now  Columbia  University)  in  1766,  and 
was  admitted  to  the  bar  in  the  same  year.  Robert  R. 
Livingston  became  his  partner.  On  the  closure  of  the 
port  of  Boston  in  1774  Jay  was  appointed  a  member 
of  the  committee  on  correspondence  with  the  other 
colonies.  He  was  elected  to  both  Continental  Con- 

*  See  American  Political  History,  by  Johnston  and  Woodburn,  vol.  i., 


92  American  Debate  [1774- 

gresses,  drafting  in  the  first  the  present  address,  and  in 
the  second  the  "Address  to  the  People  of  Canada/' 

Jay's  subsequent  services  to  the  country  as  foreign 
minister,  contributor  to  the  Federalist,  and  first  Chief- 
Justice  of  the  Supreme  Court  place  him  among  the 
first  statesmen  of  America. 

Of  Jay,  Daniel  Webster  said:  "When  the  spotless 
ermine  of  the  judicial  robe  fell  on  John  Jay,  it  touched 
nothing  less  spotless  than  himself."  Says  Henry  P. 
Johnston,  the  editor  of  Jay's  writings:  "As  nearly  as 
anyone  in  our  civil  history  he  filled  the  ideal  of  a  public 
servant." 

Of  his  literary  style  Greenough  White  says,  in  his 
Sketch  of  the  Philosophy  of  American  Literature: 

"Jay's  short  and  terse  sentences,  straightforward  and 
clear  as  crystal,  with  scanty  illustration,  manifest  the 
lucidity  of  his  mind  and  the  sincerity  of  his  convictions." 

Jay's  Address  to  the  British  People  in  the  first  Con 
tinental  Congress,  after  enumerating  the  oppressive 
acts  of  Parliament,  appealed  to  the  generosity,  the 
virtue,  the  sense  of  justice  of  the  British  nation  for 
relief. 

It  reminded  them  of  the  benefits  they  had  derived  from  a 
monopoly  of  American  commerce,  while  the  colonists 
nevertheless  had  remained  loyal  to  the  interests  of  the 
Empire,  devoting  thereto  in  foreign  wars  their  lives  and 
fortunes.  This  loyalty  they  still  professed,  repudiating  the 
charge  of  sedition  as  calumny.  However,  they  declared  that 
they  would  not  be  ' '  hewers  of  wood  or  drawers  of  water  for 
any  ministry  on  earth." 

All  they  asked  was  to  be  put  in  the  same  situation  that 
they  were  at  the  close  of  the  late  war  [with  France]. 

The  cause  of  Boston,  they  said,  they  had  made  their  own 


Congress  vs.  Parliament  93 

by  non-importation  and  similar  agreements.  They  asked 
the  British  people  to  replace  the  present  Parliament  by  one 
of  wisdom,  magnanimity,  and  justice,  in  order  to  save  the 
violated  rights  of  the  whole  Empire  from  the  devices  of 
"wicked  ministers  and  evil  counselors,  whether  in  or  out  of 
office"  [a  shrewd  appeal  to  such  radicals  as  John  Wilkes's 
adherents]  and  so  to  restore  fraternal  affection  between  all 
the  inhabitants  of  his  Majesty's  dominions. 

The  Petition  to  the  King  was  drafted  by  John  Dickin 
son.  It  was  highly  praised  by  Lord  Chatham  and  others, 
one  of  whom  said  that  "it  will  remain  an  imperishable 
monument  to  the  glory  of  its  author  ...  so  long  as 
fervid  and  manly  eloquence  and  chaste  and  elegant 
composition  shall  be  appreciated.*' 

Sketch  of  Dickinson.  John  Dickinson,  a  native  of 
Wilmington,  Del.,  studied  law  in  London.  Returning 
to  America  he  began  the  practice  of  law  in  Philadelphia, 
and  soon  pushed  his  way  to  the  front  in  his  profession. 
His  firm  opposition  to  the  Declaration  of  Independence 
by  Congress  will  be  recorded  later.  Suffice  it  to  say 
here  that  he  was  a  true  patriot,  though  an  extremely 
conservative  one.  He  founded  and  endowed  Dickinson 
College,  at  Carlisle,  Pa.,  in  1783.  He  collected  and 
published  his  Political  Writings  in  1801. 

In  contradistinction  to  the  writings  of  Thomas  Paine, 
Dickinson's  townsman,  and  rival  for  the  title  of  the 
"Penman  of  the  Revolution,"  Dickinson's  productions 
rejected  the  speculative  theories  of  "natural  rights" 
and  appealed  to  common  sense  only  through  simple, 
practical,  and  legal  arguments.  His  most  influential 
writings  were  Letters  of  a  Pennsylvania  Farmer  (1767— 
68),  and  the  Letters  of  Fabius  (1788).  The  former 
were  in  opposition  to  the  * '  To wnshend  Taxes. ' '  Written 
in  a  homely  style,  they  were  widely  read  throughout 


94  American  Debate  [1774- 

the  colonies,  and  unified  sentiment  against  the  acts  of 
Parliament.  But  they  exerted  a  still  more  important 
influence,  in  that  they  were  translated  into  French,  and 
so  aroused  that  friendly  interest  toward  the  colonies  of 
"perfidious  Albion"  which  in  time  led  France  to  aid 
American  independence.  The  Letters  of  Fabius  were 
written  in  the  same  popular  style  in  advocacy  of  the 
ratification,  by  the  people  of  the  States,  of  the  Federal 
Constitution. 

The  present  Petition  to  the  King  was  in  a  higher 
literary  vein. 

In  flowers  of  satiric  flattery  it  sheathed  the  steel-sharp 
reminder  to  the  would-be  absolute  monarch  of  "that 
compact  which  elevated  the  illustrious  (?)  House  of  Bruns 
wick  to  the  imperial  dignity  "  it  now  possessed. 

King  George's  American  subjects,  said  Dickinson,  were 
loyally  bound  to  give  him  faithful  information  of  the  feel 
ings  against  his  evil  advisers  which  were  rising  in  the 
country  which  these  were  oppressing.  The  colonists  had 
been  misrepresented  to  him  by  his  advisers  as  refusing  to 
pay  their  just  share  of  the  expenses  of  the  Empire.  They 
were  willing  to  do  so  in  a  constitutional  manner,  one  which 
did  not  reduce  them  from  freemen  to  tributaries.  "We 
solemnly  profess  that  our  councils  have  been  influenced  by 
no  other  motive  than  a  dread  of  impending  destruction." 

The  Congress  also  adopted  "An  Address  to  the 
Inhabitants  of  Quebec"  in  which  they  endeavored  to 
convince  the  Canadian  French  that  a  late  act  of  Parlia 
ment  respecting  that  province  was  calculated  to  deprive 
them  of  many  of  their  rights  (no  provision  having  been 
made  for  a  provincial  assembly),  and  to  persuade  them 
to  protect  their  liberties  by  joining  the  confederacy. 

The  Congress  on   October   26   adjourned   to   meet 


i775l  Congress  vs.  Parliament  95 

again  on  May  10,  I775>  unless  redress  of  grievances 
should  have  been  obtained  before  that  date.  Most  of 
the  delegates  were  sanguine  that  this  would  be  granted. 
George  Washington  and  Richard  Henry  Lee  expressed 
this  opinion.  Patrick  Henry  of  Virginia,  and  John 
and  Samuel  Adams  and  others  of  New  England  were 
convinced  that  war  with  Great  Britain  was  inevitable. 

Colonial  Protests  against  Taxes.  The  colonial 
assemblies  and  town  meetings  of  the  entire  country 
endorsed  the  proceedings  of  Congress,  adopting  resolu 
tions  in  some  cases  in  an  even  bolder  spirit.  Already  on 
September  9,  1774,  a  town  meeting  at  Milton,  Mass., 
had  passed  what  were  known  as  the  " Suffolk  Resolves" 
from  the  county  in  which  the  town  was  then  included. 

These  declared  that  a  sovereign  who  breaks  his  compact 
with  his  subjects  forfeits  their  allegiance;  that  Parliament's 
repressive  acts  were  unconstitutional;  that  tax-collectors 
should  not  pay  over  money  to  go  into  the  royal  treasury; 
that  the  towns  should  choose  militia  officers  exclusively 
from  the  patriot  party;  that  the  citizens  of  Milton  would 
obey  the  Continental  Congress;  that  they  favored  a  pro 
vincial  congress;  and  that  they  would  seize  Crown  officers 
as  hostages  for  any  political  prisoners  arrested  by  the 
Governor.  They  recommended,  however,  that  all  persons 
should  abstain  from  lawless  acts. 

The  patriots  in  all  the  colonies  were  not  content  with 
passing  resolutions,  but  they  appointed  committees  of 
vigilance  to  see  that  the  resolutions  were  obeyed.  The 
provincial  convention  of  Massachusetts  recommended 
by  the  townspeople  of  Milton  was  held  in  October, 
1774,  it  being  constituted  of  delegates  to  the  House  of 
Representatives,  whose  meeting  at  Salem,  set  for  the 
fifth  of  the  month,  had  been  countermanded  by  Gover- 


96  American  Debate  [1774- 

nor  Gage,  and  who  had  thereupon  adjourned  to  Concord 
and  resolved  themselves  into  such  a  convention.  It 
adopted  measures  of  defense  for  the  colony,  and  sent 
Josiah  Quincy,  2d,  to  England  to  represent  to  the  Brit 
ish  government  the  true  state  of  the  colonies,  Massa 
chusetts  in  particular,  and  to  learn  the  intentions  of 
the  ministry  towards  them.  Governor  Gage,  in  op 
position  to  these  acts,  continued  his  fortification  of 
Boston,  and  prepared  to  seize  the  military  stores  which 
the  patriots  were  now  collecting  in  various  places, 
Concord  in  particular. 

It  now  seems  fatuous  that  any  of  the  delegates  to  the 
Congress,  all  of  whom  clearly  recognized  the  arrogance 
of  Parliament  as  constituted  at  the  time,  could  believe 
that  this  body  would  not  retaliate  on  America  for  the 
body  blow  it  had  directed  at  the  commercial  system  of 
the  Empire  in  the  anti-trade  agreements.  On  Novem 
ber  19, 1774,  shortly  before  this  Parliament  reassembled, 
Josiah  Quincy,  2d,  had  an  interview  with  Lord  North 
and  the  Earl  of  Dartmouth,  President  of  the  Board  of 
Trade  and  Secretary  for  the  Colonies,  in  which  the 
Prime  Minister  affirmed  that  his  government  was 
determined  to  exert  all  its  power  to  effect  the  submission 
of  the  colonies.  He  said :  "Until  we  have  tried  what  we 
can  do,  we  can  never  be  justified  in  receding. "  Quincy 
reported  to  a  friend  in  America  (Joseph  Reed,  of  Phila 
delphia)  his  conviction  that  his  countrymen  "must  yet 
seal  their  faith  and  constancy  to  their  liberties  with 
blood."  Quincy  however  did  not  live  to  see  the  fulfill 
ment  of  his  prophecy,  dying  of  consumption  on  his 
return  voyage. 

Parliament  met  on  November  29,  1774,  and  listened 
to  the  speech  from  the  throne,  which  expressed  the 
determination  of  the  King  and  Prime  Minister  to 


i775l  Congress  vs.  Parliament  97 

enforce  the  supreme  authority  of  Parliament  over  all 
British  dominions.  A  committee  was  appointed  to 
report  on  American  affairs.  A  recess  over  the  holidays 
was  then  taken. 

Efforts  at  Conciliation  in  Parliament.  Parliament 
reconvened  on  January  20, 1775.  Lord  Chatham  on  that 
day  moved  in  the  Lords  that  the  troops  be  removed 
from  Boston,  as  a  preliminary  step  to  reconciling  the 
colonies.  He  supported  the  motion  by  one  of  his  most 
eloquent  speeches.1 

He  said  that  he  would  not  wait  to  examine  the  American 
papers.  He  and  all  the  lords  knew  their  purport  already. 
Delay  was  dangerous.  Evil  counselors  of  the  King  were 
pressing  coercion,  and,  if  they  were  not  balked,  his  Majesty 
and  the  country  would  be  undone.  The  King  would  lose  the 
brightest  jewel  in  his  crown,  and  the  nation  would  be  ruined. 
The  Americans  were  right  in  their  contention.  Representa 
tion  and  taxation  must  go  together.  Property  is  the  sole 
dominion  of  the  owner.  "The  touch  of  another  annihilates 
it." 

He  praised  the  Americans  for  their  manly  course  under 
intolerable  oppression,  eulogizing  the  Continental  Congress 
in  words  that  have  been  already  reported.  "This  wise 
people  speak  out.  They  do  not  hold  the  language  of  slaves. 
They  do  not  ask  you  to  repeal  your  laws  as  a  favor;  they 
claim  it  as  a  right."  The  acts,  he  said,  must  be  repealed; 
"you  cannot  enforce  them.  The  ministry  are  checkmated, 
not  a  move  but  they  are  ruined.  But  bare  repeal  will  not 
satisfy  this  enlightened  and  spirited  people.  What,  repeal 
a  bit  of  paper?  You  must  go  through  the  work — you  must 
declare  you  have  no  right  to  tax — then  they  may  trust  you. ' ' 

He  pleaded  for  immediate  action.  "While  I  am  now 
speaking  the  decisive  blow  may  be  struck,  and  millions 

1  An  extensive  transcript  of  this  istound  in  Great  Debates  in  American 
History,  vol.  i.f  p.  101. 
7 


98  American  Debate  [1774- 

involved  in  the  consequences."  The  "first  drop  of  blood" 
would  be  immedicabile  vulnus,  a  festering  wound  which 
would  "mortify  the  whole  body." 

He  pledged  himself  ' '  never  to  leave  this  business. ' '  When 
he  looked  at  the  invasion  of  the  constitutional  rights  of  the 
colonists,  he  owned  himself  an  American,  and  would  vindi 
cate  those  rights  to  the  verge  of  his  life. 

The  motion  of  Lord  Chatham  was  rejected  by  a 
large  majority.  Nevertheless  he  shortly  afterward 
presented  a  bill  containing  a  plan  of  conciliation,  the 
preamble  of  which  was  a  reiteration  of  the  principles  of 
colonial  policy  which  he  had  supported  when  the  oppres 
sive  taxes  were  proposed  (see  page  46). 

The  plan  was  that  an  American  Congress  be  held,  which 
should  recognize  the  "superintending  authority"  of  Parlia 
ment,  and  vote  a  "permanent  revenue "  to  the  alleviation  of 
the  national  debt.  That  the  vice-admiralty  courts  be  re 
duced  to  their  ancient  limits.  That  no  person  be  sent  to 
Great  Britain  to  be  tried  for  crimes  committed  in  America. 
That  the  acts  complained  of  be  suspended.  That  judges 
hold  office  during  good  behavior  and  be  paid  by  the  Crown. 
That  the  colonial  charters  be  held  inviolate  unless  legally 
forfeited.  That  royal  troops  might  be  sent  to  the  colonies 
but  not  used  to  destroy  the  just  rights  of  the  people. 

This  bill  was  rejected  on  its  first  reading  by  a  large 
majority.  Owing  to  its  assertion  of  Parliamentary 
supremacy  in  matters  outside  of  taxation,  which  the 
colonists  had  now  come  to  deny,  it  would,  if  adopted, 
have  been  opposed  by  the  Americans  also. 

In  preparing  the  bill  Lord  Chatham  consulted  Dr. 
Franklin,  agent  of  Massachusetts  in  London,  but 
presented  it  before  the  latter  had  submitted  suggestions 
for  alteration.  Franklin  was  present  on  the  occasion 


1775]  Congress  vs.  Parliament  99 

of  its  introduction  in  the  Lords.  The  Earl  of  Sandwich 
(John  Montagu) ,  the  notoriously  corrupt  First  Lord  of 
the  Admiralty,1  moved  that  the  bill  be  rejected  im 
mediately  "with  the  contempt  it  deserved,"  as  he 
"could  never  believe  it  was  the  production  of  a  British 
peer,"  but  was  apparently  "the  work  of  some  Ameri 
can."  Turning  toward  Franklin,  he  added  that  "he 
fancied  he  had  in  his  eye  the  person  who  drew  it  up,  one 
of  the  bitterest  and  most  mischievous  enemies  this 
country  had  ever  known." 

Lord  Chatham  asserted  that  the  plan  was  entirely 
his  own,  but  that  he  would  have  been  glad  to  take  the 
advice  of 

"  a  person  so  perfectly  acquainted  with  the  whole  of 
American  affairs  as  the  gentleman  alluded  to  and  so  injuri 
ously  reflected  on ;  one  whom  all  Europe  held  in  estimation 
for  his  knowledge  and  wisdom,  and  who  ranked  with  our 
Boyles  and  Newtons ;  who  was  an  honor,  not  to  the  English 
nation  only,  but  to  human  nature." 

Shortly  before  this,  Dr.  Franklin  and  other  American 
agents  in  London  asked  to  address  the  Commons  on 
the  American  petitions.  This  request  was  refused  on 
the  ground  that  the  petitions  came  from  an  "illegal 
assembly."  Petitions  from  English  merchants  in  favor 
of  America  were  referred  to  a  committee,  which,  because 
of  its  predetermined  inaction  thereon,  was  popularly 
known  as  "the  committee  of  oblivion." 

Immediately  on  the  rejection  of  Lord  Chatham's 
bill  to  remove  the  troops  from  Boston,  Lord  North 
proposed  in  the  Commons  a  joint  address  to  the  King 
on  American  affairs.  It  was  carried  in  both  Houses  by 
large  majorities.  It  declared  the  sovereign  authority 

1  See  sketch  of  Sandwich  in  the  Encyclopaedia  Britannica. 


ioo  American  Debate  [1774- 

of  Crown  and  Parliament  over  the  colonies,  and  re 
quested  the  King  to  enforce  this,  promising  him  the 
needed  support.  In  the  debate  on  the  bill  the  ministerial 
adherents  asserted  the  need  of  crushing  at  any  cost  the 
evident  American  design  of  independence  at  its  incep 
tion.  However,  they  claimed  that,  so  incapable  were 
the  colonists  of  military  discipline,  only  a  small  force 
would  be  needed  to  bring  them  to  terms. 

Parliament  soon  after  (in  February,  1775)  increased 
the  naval  and  military  forces,  and  to  starve  America 
into  submission  it  restricted  the  trade  of  the  colonists, 
save  those  of  New  York,  North  Carolina,  and  Georgia, 
to  Great  Britain,  Ireland,  and  the  British  West  Indies, 
and  prohibited  their  fishing  on  the  banks  of  Newfound 
land.  The  laws  were  opposed  by  the  minority  as  not 
only  cruel  to  the  colonists  but  oppressive  to  Brit 
ish  merchants,  since  the  Americans  with  whom  they 
traded  would  thereby  be  rendered  unable  to  pay  their 
debts. 

Dr.  Franklin  held  frequent  conversations  with 
English  friends  of  America  on  terms  of  compromise 
which  might  be  acceptable  to  both  parties.  The  main 
suggestions  of  Franklin  were  that,  on  the  part  of  the 
British  government,  the  tea  duty  be  repealed,  restraint 
of  colonial  manufactures  be  reconsidered,  the  royal 
garrisons  be  removed,  and  popular  government  be 
restored  to  Massachusetts  and  given  to  Quebec; 
and  that  in  return  America  should  accept  the  naviga 
tion  acts.  Against  the  objection  that  the  King  would 
not  consent  to  be  limited  in  sending  troops  to  any  part 
of  the  Empire,  Franklin  urged  that  this  involved  the 
possibility  of  his  raising  troops  in  America  to  serve  in 
England  without  consent  of  Parliament — a  menace  to 
British  liberties  at  home.  If  troops  were  necessary  in 


i775l  Congress  vs.  Parliament  ioi 

America,  he  said,  the  colonial  assemblies  would  assent 
to  their  presence.  He  therefore  insisted  on  retaining 
this  article  in  the  terms. 

When  asked  why  he  was  so  concerned  about  the 
liberties  of  the  people  of  Quebec,  he  said  that  the 
colonists  at  great  expense  of  blood  and  treasure  had 
assisted  in  the  expulsion  of  French  power  from  Canada, 
and  were  determined  to  permit  no  new  absolute  govern 
ment  to  be  established  on  their  borders.  x 

These  propositions  were  placed  before  the  ministry. 
Soon  after  (early  in  February,  1775),  it  was  intimated  to 
Dr.  Franklin  that,  if  he  would  modify  them  in  favor  of 
Great  Britain  and  secure  their  acceptance,  he  could 
have  any  place  or  honor  it  was  in  the  power  of  the 
government  to  grant  him.  He  replied  that  the  ministry 
would  rather  give  him  a  seat  in  a  cart  to  Tyburn  than 
any  other  "place"  whatever. 

The  ministerial  agents  then  made  counter  proposi 
tions,  including  the  repeal  of  the  Boston  Port  Bill. 
Franklin  replied  that,  as  none  of  the  other  acts  relating 
to  Massachusetts  were  to  be  repealed,  the  terms  could 
not  be  accepted.  He  added :  "They  who  give  up  liberty 
to  obtain  a  little  temporary  safety  deserve  neither 
liberty  nor  safety." 

Suddenly,  to  the  surprise  of  both  his  friends  and 
opponents,  Lord  North  changed  his  policy  of  oppression, 
and,  on  February  20,  1775,  proposed  in  the  Commons 
a  plan  of  conciliation.  It  was  shrewdly  based  on  the 
Roman  principle  of  "divide  and  conquer." 

Whenever  any  colony  (not  all  the  colonies)  should  con 
tribute  its  proportion  of  expense  to  the  common  defense 
and  make  provision  for  the  support  of  the  civil  government 

1  This  may  be  regarded  as  the  inception  of  the  Monroe  Doctrine 


102  American  Debate  [1774- 

and  the  courts  in  the  colony,  Parliament  would  forbear  to 
levy  any  taxes  on  it  except  for  the  regulation  of  commerce. 

The  Prime  Minister  explained  to  his  astonished  party 
that  the  plan  was  a  touchstone  to  try  the  sincerity  of 
Americans.  If  they  rejected  it  (which  he  evidently 
expected  and  hoped)  the  government  would  then  be 
justified  in  adopting  coercive  measures.  With  this 
understanding  Parliament  adopted  the  plan.  Neverthe 
less  plans  of  conciliation  were  also  presented  in  the 
Commons  by  David  Hartley  and  Edmund  Burke. 
Hartley's  proposition  was  that  the  colonies  should 
contribute  to  the  general  expense  of  the  Empire,  the 
amount  and  application  of  the  contribution  to  be  fixed 
by  the  colonial  assemblies.  Burke 's  proposition  was 
that  the  colonies  should  be  permitted  to  tax  themselves 
according  to  ancient  usage,  and  that  all  Parliamentary 
taxes  on  them  should  be  repealed.  Both  plans  were 
rejected  by  large  majorities. 

Sketch  of  Burke.  Edmund  Burke  was  a  native  of 
Dublin,  and  a  graduate  of  Trinity  College  there.  He 
studied  law,  but  was  never  called  to  the  bar,  giving  up 
his  legal  studies  in  1755  to  pursue  literature. 

In  1756  he  published  anonymously  The  Vindication 
of  Natural  Society,  a  parody,  though  with  a  sincere 
purpose,  of  the  writings  of  Lord  Bolingbroke,  which 
was  so  successful  that  it  was  thought  to  be  a  posthumous 
work  of  that  rationalistic  philosopher.  During  the 
next  year  appeared  his  Philosophical  Inquiry  into  the 
Origin  of  Our  Ideas  of  the  Sublime  and  Beautiful,  a 
work,  called  by  John  Morley  "  a  piece  of  hard  thinking," 
which  stimulated  the  German  aesthetic  philosopher 
Lessing,  the  author  of  Laocoon.  In  the  same  year,  in 
collaboration  with  his  cousin  William  Burke,  he  wrote 


i775l  Congress  vs.  Parliament  103 

An  Account  of  the  European  Settlements  in  America, 
in  which  he  dwelt  admiringly  upon  the  colonists' 
indomitable  love  of  liberty. 

In  1759  he  founded  the  Annual  Register,  a  publica 
tion  which  has  continued  to  the  present  day  as  a  record 
of  important  current  events  throughout  the  world. 
Burke 's  first  article  in  this  was  upon  the  relations  of  the 
American  colonies  to  Great  Britain. 

As  private  secretary  successively  to  two  statesmen, 
Hamilton  and  Rockingham,  he  received  a  thorough 
apprenticeship  in  politics.  In  1765  he  entered  Parlia 
ment,  and  in  1771  he  was  appointed  Agent  of  the 
Province  of  New  York.  His  knowledge  of  American 
affairs,  and,  what  is  still  more  important,  of  the  Ameri 
can  temper  (for  Burke  was  a  profound  psychologist), 
very  soon  made  him  a  prominent  figure  in  the  discus 
sions  relating  to  the  colonies,  and  he  became  the  fore 
most  advocate  of  the  policy  of  conciliation. 

The  later  career  of  Burke  was  chiefly  concerned  with 
British,  French,  and  Irish  politics,  and  needs  not  be 
discussed  here. 

Of  Burke's  character  the  best  description  is  by 
his  countryman  Oliver  Goldsmith,  in  the  famous 
lines : 

"  Here  lies  our  good  Edmund,  whose  genius  was  such, 
We  scarcely  can  praise  it,  or  blame  it  too  much ; 
Who,  born  for  the  universe,  narrowed  his  mind, 
And  to  party  gave  up  what  was  meant  for  mankind ; 
Though  fraught  with  all  learning,  yet  straining  his  throat 
To  persuade  Tommy  Townshend  to  lend  him  a  vote ; 
Who,  too  deep  for  his  hearers,  still  went  on  refining, 
And  thought  of  convincing,  while  they  thought  of  dining; 
Though  equal  to  all  things,  for  all  things  unfit, 
Too  nice  for  a  statesman,  too  proud  for  a  wit; 


104  American  Debate  [1774- 

For  a  patriot,  too  cool;  for  a  drudge,  disobedient; 
And  too  fond  of  the  right  to  pursue  the  expedient. 
In  short,  'twas  his  fate,  unemploy'd,  or  in  place,  sir, 
To  eat  mutton  cold,  and  cut  blocks  with  a  razor." 

John  Richard  Green,  in  his  Short  History  of  the 
English  People,  says  of  the  personal  appearance  and 
oratorical  style  of  Burke : 

"His  speeches  on  the  Stamp  Acts  and  the  American  War 
soon  lifted  him  into  fame.  The  heavy  Quakerlike  figure, 
the  little  wig,  the  round  spectacles,  the  cumbrous  roll  of 
paper  which  loaded  Burke's  pocket,  gave  little  promise  of  a 
great  orator  and  less  of  the  characteristics  of  his  oratory — 
its  passionate  ardor,  its  poetic  fancy,  its  amazing  prodigality 
of  resources;  and  dazzling  succession  in  which  irony,  pathos, 
invective,  tenderness,  and  the  most  brilliant  word-pictures, 
the  coolest  argument  followed  each  other.  It  was  an 
eloquence  indeed  of  a  wholly  new  order  in  English  experience 
.  .  .  The  philosophical  cast  of  Burke's  reasoning  was 
unaccompanied  by  any  philosophical  coldness  of  tone  or 
phrase.  The  groundwork,  indeed,  of  his  nature  was  poetic. 
His  ideas,  if  conceived  by  the  reason,  took  shape  and  color 
from  the  splendor  and  fire  of  his  imagination.  A  nation 
was  to  him  a  great  living  society,  so  complex  in  its  relations, 
and  whose  institutions  were  so  interwoven  with  glorious 
events  in  the  past,  that  to  touch  it  rudely  was  a  sacrilege." 

Charles  James  Fox,  in  reply  to  Lord  Lauderdale's 
characterization  of  the  orator  as  "  a  splendid  madman, " 
retorted:  "It  is  difficult  to  say  whether  he  is  mad  or 
not,  but  whether  the  one  or  the  other,  everyone  must 
agree  that  he  is  a  prophet."  To  the  truth  of  this  Lord 
Brougham,  long  after  the  close  of  Burke's  career, 
attested,  saying,  "All  his  predictions,  except  one 
momentary  expression,  have  been  more  than  fulfilled." 


i775l  Congress  vs.  Parliament  105 

Burke's  speech  in  support  of  his  plan,  On  Conciliation 
•with  America,  is  one  of  six  of  his  many  hundred  orations 
which  have  been  preserved,  due  to  the  fact  that  Burke 
wrote  the  six  out  for  publication. 

On  the  occasion  of  this  speech,  Henry  Flood  wrote: 

"His  performance  was  the  best  I  have  heard  from  him  in 
the  whole  winter.  He  is  always  brilliant  to  an  uncommon 
degree,  and  yet  I  believe  it  would  be  better  he  were  less  so. 
I  don't  mean  to  join  with  the  cry  which  will  always  run 
against  shining  parts,  when  I  say  that  I  sincerely  think  it 
interrupts  him  so  much  in  argument  that  the  House  are 
never  sensible  that  he  argues  as  well  as  he  does.  Fox  gives 
a  strong  proof  of  this,  for  he  makes  use  of  Burke's  speech  as  a 
repertory,  and  by  stating  crabbedly  two  or  three  of  those 
ideas  which  Burke  has  buried  under  flowers,  he  is  thought 
almost  always  to  have  had  more  argument." 

Charles  Kendall  Adams  says  in  his  Representative 
British  Orations,  in  which  the  speech  is  given  in  full 
with  annotations,  that  this  oration  "has  more  of  the 
author's  characteristic  merits,  and  fewer  of  his  charac 
teristic  defects  than  any  other  of  his  speeches."  Sir 
James  Mackintosh,  indeed,  pronounced  it  "the  most 
faultless  of  Mr.  Burke's  productions." 

The  reader  is  referred  to  the  speech,  which  consumed 
five  hours  in  delivery,  in  Professor  Adams's  compilation. 
The  exigency  of  space  permits  only  an  outline  of  his 
argument.  Said  Burke: 

The  proposition  is  peace;  the  means,  restoration  of  con 
fidence  in  the  mother  country  by  our  plain  good  intention, 
which  is  as  easily  discovered  at  the  first  view  as  fraud  is 
surely  detected  at  the  end  [a  hit  at  Lord  North's  plan]. 
There  is  nothing  novel  or  captivating  about  my  plan.  It  has 
none  of  the  splendor  of  the  project  of  Lord  North.  It  does 


io6  American  Debate  [1774- 

not  institute  a  magnificent  auction  of  finance  where  cap 
tivated  provinces  come  to  general  ransom  by  bidding  against 
each  other  until  you  knock  down  the  hammer  and  determine 
a  proportion  of  payments  beyond  all  the  powers  of  algebra 
to  equalize  and  settle. 

The  House  has  declared  conciliation  admissible  previously 
to  any  submission  by  America,  and,  as  a  basis  for  this,  has 
admitted  error  in  its  former  method  of  taxation. 

The  proposals  ought  to  originate  with  us,  as  the  superior 
power.  The  capital  questions  are:  (i)  whether  you  ought 
to  concede;  (2)  what  this  concession  should  be. 

Preliminary  to  this  discussion  we  should  know  the  nature 
and  peculiar  circumstances  of  our  object. 

Here  Burke  drew  upon  his  extensive  economic 
knowledge  of  America,  and  described  the  vast  natural 
resources  of  the  country  in  enthralling  eloquence.  His 
panegyric  on  the  whale-fishermen  of  New  England  is  an 
English  classic  which  should  appear  in  every  series  of 
school  reading  books. 

Gentlemen  admit  that  America  is  a  noble  object — "an 
object  well  worth  fighting  for,"  they  say.  But  force  is  not 
the  means  by  which  to  acquire  it.  Force  must  be  con 
tinually  exercised.  A  nation  is  not  governed  which  is 
perpetually  to  be  conquered. 

Then  force  impairs  the  object  to  be  obtained.  It  is  ruined 
in  the  contest.  I  contend  for  the  whole  America.  Let  me 
add  that  I  do  not  choose  wholly  to  break  the  American  spirit, 
because  it  is  the  spirit  that  has  made  England. 

We  have  no  experience  in  employing  force  in  America. 
If  our  ancient  indulgence  has  been  pursued  to  a  fault,  then 
was  our  sin  far  more  salutary  than  would  be  our  penitence. 

The  love  of  freedom  is  the  predominating  American 
characteristic,  so  strong  that  in  the  end  it  will  triumph  over 
all  the  force  that  Great  Britain  can  exert. 


i775l  Congress  vs.  Parliament  107 

Here  Burke  dilated  on  the  subject,  showing  that 
Americans  in  their  resistance  to  what  they  considered 
unjust  taxation  were  true  descendants  of  English 
patriots  such  as  Hampden.  He  said : 

This  spirit  had  been  enlarged:  (i)  by  the  nature  of  their 
legislatures,  in  which  the  popular  branch  was  the  more 
powerful;  (2)  by  their  religion,  being  largely  Protestantism 
of  a  kind  which  is  most  averse  to  all  implicit  submission  of 
mind  and  opinion;  and  (3)  by  their  education,  for  in  no 
country  was  law  so  general  a  pursuit,  and  this  is  the  study 
that  renders  men  "acute,  inquisitive,  dexterous,  prompt 
in  attack,  ready  in  defense,  full  of  resources.  "x 

On  the  point  of  religion  he  anticipated  the  objection  that 
the  Church  of  England  prevailed  in  the  southern  colonies, 
tending  to  make  its  adherents  submissive  to  authority,  by 
speaking  of  the  counteracting  influence  of  slavery,  which 
made  the  spirit  of  liberty  still  more  high  and  haughty  than 
in  the  northern  provinces,  since  freedom  is  to  the  southerners 
not  only  an  enjoyment,  but  a  kind  of  rank  and  privilege, 
and  history  proves  that  slaveholding  freemen  have  ever 
been  the  most  unconquerable. 

On  the  point  of  law  he  anticipated  the  objection  that  its 
study  should  make  men  obedient  to  authority,  by  addressing 
with  admirable  effrontery  a  minister  on  the  floor  who  was 
making  signs  of  dissent  to  Burke's  argument — Edward 
Thurlow  (afterward  Baron  Thurlow),  the  Attorney- 
General,  who  venomously  hated  the  Americans  to  the 
extent  that  he  asserted  in  the  debate  on  the  American 
Prohibitory  Bill  that  he  might  set  aside  by  scire  facias  as 
forfeited  every  colonial  charter — and  by  appealing  to  him 
as  an  authority  on  the  subject  (it  was  well  known  that 
Thurlow  had  arisen  to  power  by  his  factious  spirit)2  if  it 

1  Thus  when  the  calling  of  the  town  meetings  had  been  prohibited, 
the  patriots  kept  them  in  continuous  existence  by  the  parliamentary 
device  of  adjourning  them. 

•  See  "Thurlow"  in  the  Encyclopaedia  Britannica. 


io8  American  Debate  [1774- 

were  not  true  that,  when  great  honors  and  emoluments  had 
not  won  over  legal  knowledge  to  the  service  of  the  state, 
this  was  a  formidable  adversary  of  government. 

The  fourth  and  last  cause  of  the  independent  spirit  of  the 
colonists  is  distance  from  the  parent  government.  This  was 
a  natural  cause,  not  moral.  In  large  bodies  the  circulation 
of  power  must  be  less  vigorous  at  the  extremities.  Burke 
instanced  the  Turkish  and  Spanish  empires  as  tolerant 
from  necessity  toward  their  distant  provinces. 

The  question,  however,  resumed  Burke,  is  not  whether 
this  spirit  of  liberty  is  commendatory  in  its  extreme  mani 
festation  in  America,  but  "what  in  the  name  of  God  shall 
we  do  with  it  ? "  What  policy  toward  the  colonists  will  give 
a  little  stability  to  our  politics  and  prevent  the  return  of 
such  unhappy  deliberations  as  the  present  ?  The  Americans 
have  developed  an  unexpected  ability  in  self-government. 
Shall  our  policy  take  this  into  account,  or  continue  on  the 
exploded  presumption  of  their  return  to  their  former  docile 
spirit  of  reliance  on  Great  Britain  for  such  paternal  legisla 
tion  as  she  chose  to  grant  ?  The  laws  they  are  now  making 
for  themselves,  reports  Governor  Dunmore  of  Virginia,  are 
infinitely  better  obeyed  than  the  ancient  government. x 

Obedience  is  what  makes  government,  not  the  names  by 
which  government  is  called.  Will  the  colonists  not  struggle 
to  retain  the  beneficent  and  effective  new  order?  The 
"anarchy"  which  gentlemen  expected  to  result  from  the 
denial  of  its  old  government  to  Massachusetts  has  proved 
tolerable.  A  vast  province  has  subsisted  nearly  a  year  in 
health  and  vigor,  without  any  machinery  of  government. 
This  has  taught  us  that  many  of  those  fundamental  princi- 

1  That  this  is  a  general  principle  of  the  human  mind,  Burke  might 
have  shown  by  citing  a  similar  report  made  of  his  own  countrymen. 
In  the  time  of  Henry  VIII. ,  Finglass,  the  Chief-Baron  of  the  Exche 
quer,  reported:  "That  the  English  statutes  passed  in  Ireland  are  not 
observed  eight  days  after  passing  them;  whereas  those  laws  and  statutes 
made  by  the  Irish  on  their  hills,  they  keep  firm  and  stable  without 
breaking  them  for  any  favor  or  reward." 


X7751  Congress  vs.  Parliament  109 

pies,  formerly  believed  infallible,  are  either  not  of  the  impor 
tance  they  were  imagined  to  be,  or  that  we  have  not  at  all 
adverted  to  some  other  far  more  important  principles  which 
overrule  them.1  With  what  consistency  can  Englishmen 
fight  against  the  principle  of  self-government  upon  which 
their  own  liberties  were  founded  ? 

There  are  but  three  ways  of  procedure  toward  this 
stubborn  spirit  in  America:  (i)  to  change  it  as  inconvenient 
by  removing  the  causes ;  (2)  to  prosecute  it  as  criminal ;  (3) 
to  comply  with  it  as  necessary. 

The  first  plan  is  most  systematic  but  it  is  radical,  and 
attended  with  great  difficulties,  even  impossibilities.  The 
growing  population  can  be  checked,  as  already  proposed  in 
Parliament,  by  the  Crown  making  no  further  grants  of 
land.  But  the  people  would  then  settle  these  lands  without 
authority.  It  would  be  impossible  to  stop  them. 

Here  Burke  presented  a  graphic  picture  of  the 
pioneers  swarming  over  the  Appalachian  range,  and 
forming  a  free  tribe  of  ''English  Tartars"  in  the  lands 
beyond,  conquering  in  time  the  British  government  of 
the  eastern  slope.  Such,  he  said,  would  be  the  effect 
of  forbidding  men  their  natural  right  to  the  use  of  the 
earth.2 

To  restrict  colonial  commerce  is  an  easier  task,  but  the 
effect  would  be  injurious  on  Great  Britain,  directly  in  the 
loss  of  trade,  and  indirectly  in  creating  an  enemy  in  the  im 
poverished  colonies.  They  who  are  too  weak  to  contribute 
to  your  prosperity  may  be  strong  enough  to  complete  your 
ruin.  Spoliatis  arma  super sunt. 3 

The  temper  of  the  colonists  is  unalterable  by  persuasion. 
An  Englishman  is  the  unfittest  person  on  earth  to  argue 
another  Englishman  into  slavery. 

1  A  point  for  the  "Philosophical  Anarchist,"  or  extreme  individualist. 

a  A  point  for  "Single  Taxers." 

*  "To  the  despoiled  arms  still  remain." 


no  American  Debate  [1774- 

Their  religion  and  education  are  equally  unchangeable. 
The  Inquisition  and  dragonnades  were  ineffectual  in  the  old 
world  and  would  be  more  so  in  the  new.  The  burning  of 
books  and  banishment  of  lawyers  are  similarly  impossible. 
The  annihilation  of  popular  assemblies  could  be  accom 
plished  only  by  a  great  army,  which  would  in  the  end 
prove  fully  as  difficult  to  be  kept  in  obedience. 

The  enfranchisement  of  slaves,  proposed  to  reduce  the 
aristocratic  spirit  of  the  southern  colonies,  is  harder  to 
accomplish  than  its  panegyrists  imagine.  Slaves  are  often 
much  attached  to  their  masters.  A  general  wild  offer  of 
liberty  is  not  always  accepted.  History  furnishes  few 
instances  of  it.  "It  is  sometimes  as  hard  to  persuade  slaves 
to  be  free,  as  it  is  to  compel  freemen  to  be  slaves."  Then 
the  American  master  may  enfranchise,  too,  and  arm  servile 
hands  in  defense  of  freedom.  Dull  as  the  negro  is  from 
slavery,  would  he  not  suspect  the  gift  offered  him  by  a 
nation  which  has  forced  the  slave  trade  on  America — one 
of  the  causes  of  quarrel  between  the  colonies  and  Great 
Britain? 

But  let  us  suppose  all  these  moral  difficulties  got  over. 
The  ocean  remains.  You  cannot  pump  this  dry. 

The  second  plan  to  reduce  the  spirit  of  the  colonies  is  to 
prosecute  it  in  its  overt  acts  as  criminal.  It  looks  to  me 
narrow  and  pedantic  to  apply  the  ordinary  ideas  of  criminal 
justice  to  this  great  public  contest.  I  do  not  know  the 
method  of  drawing  up  an  indictment  against  a  whole  people. 
I  can  scarcely  conceive  anything  more  imprudent  than  for 
the  head  of  a  great  political  union  of  communities  to  insist 
that  if  any  privilege  is  pleaded  against  his  acts,  his  whole 
authority  is  denied,  and  to  beat  to  arms  and  put  the  offend 
ing  provinces  under  ban.  Will  this  not  teach  them  to  make 
no  distinctions  on  their  part  ?  to  think  that  the  government 
against  which  a  claim  of  liberty  is  treason  is  one  to  which 
submission  is  slavery? 

We  are  by  necessity  both  judge  and  litigant  in  all  disputes 
with  the  colonies.  In  this  responsible  situation  let  us 


i77sl  Congress  us.  Parliament  in 

ponder.    What  advantage  have  we  derived  from  our  penal 
laws  against  the  Americans  ? 

The  third  plan  is  to  comply  with  the  American  spirit — • 
if  you  please,  as  a  necessary  evil ;  to  admit  the  colonists  into  an 
interest  in  the  British  constitution,  and  to  this  end  to  abolish 
revenue  taxes  in  the  laying  of  which  they  had  no  voice. 

Here  the  speaker  entered  into  the  subject  of  the 
constitutional  relations  of  England  with  Ireland  and 
Wales,  especially  in  regard  to  taxation  and  representa 
tion.  He  showed  from  English  history  that  troubles 
with  these  Celtic  nations  never  ceased  until  Parliament 
ary  representation  was  given  them.  Ireland  now  had  its 
own  Parliament  and  Wales  was  a  part  of  Great  Britain. 

"  When  the  day-star  of  the  English  constitution  had 
arisen  in  their  hearts  all  was  harmony  within  and  without."1 

Burke  next  discussed  the  ancient  relations  of  England 
to  Chester  and  Durham,  which  at  one  time  were  coun 
ties  palatine,  or  possessed  of  royal  privileges,  and  as 
such  without  representation  in  Parliament,  and  he 
showed  from  history  the  wisdom  of  having  granted 
these  districts  equality  with  the  rest  of  the  kingdom. 

Representation  of  America  in  the  British  Parliament  is 
impracticable.  Opposuit  natura.  The  ocean  intervenes. 
But  what  nature  has  disjoined  in  one  way  wisdom  may 
unite  in  another.  Give  legal  competency  to  the  colonial 
assemblies  to  support  their  government  in  peace,  and  to 
grant  aid  to  the  Empire  in  war.  They  have  always  shown 
a  readiness  to  do  the  latter. 

Burke  then  proposed : 

(i)  That  all  colonial  taxes  and  repressive  acts,  such  as 
the  Boston  Port  Bill,  growing  out  of  the  same  be  repealed, 
1  A  paraphrase  of  Horace,  book  i.,  ode  xii. 


H2  American  Debate  [1774- 

and  the  act  for  the  trial  of  treason  committed  outside  of 
Great  Britain  (35th  year  of  Henry  VIII.)  be  amended  to 
confine  it  to  its  original  intended  application,  viz.,  to  places 
outside  the  jurisdiction  of  the  Crown;  (2)  that  judges  paid 
by  the  colonial  assemblies  shall  hold  office  during  good 
behavior,  and  be  not  removed  except  on  complaint  of  the 
assemblies  and  colonial  officers;  and  (3)  that  courts  of 
admiralty  be  made  more  commodious  for  litigants,  and  the 
judges  be  paid  decent  salaries. 

After  supporting  these  propositions  by  showing  that 
they  were  in  harmony  with  the  British  constitution  and 
would  be  acceptable  to  the  colonists,  Burke  opposed 
the  propositions  of  Lord  North. 

Ransom  by  auction  is  a  new,  an  unheard-of,  an  anomalous 
project.  It  is  without  example  of  our  ancestors,  or  root  in 
the  constitution,  being  neither  regular  Parliamentary 
taxation  nor  colony  grant.  It  is  an  experiment  which  must 
prove  fatal  in  the  end  to  our  constitution,  being  taxation  in 
the  antechamber  of  the  ministry.  The  just  proportion  of 
taxes  cannot  be  settled  by  it.  It  will  not  be  acceptable  to  the 
colonists  because  it  violates  the  principle  of  self -assessment 
for  which  they  are  contending,  and  so  it  will  prove  as 
impossible  of  execution  as  the  present  taxation,  especially 
as  it  will  be  even  more  easily  eluded.  I  allow  that  the 
Empire  of  Germany  raises  her  revenue  and  her  troops  by 
quotas  and  contingents,  but  this  revenue  and  this  army  are 
the  worst  in  the  world. 

Instead  of  a  standing  revenue  you  will  have  a  perpetual 
quarrel.  "The  intestine  fire  in  the  bowels  of  the  colonies 
will  be  fed  until  in  time  it  will  consume  the  whole  British 
Empire." 

Burke  then  compared  the  simplicity  of  his  plan  with 
the  intricacy  of  Lord  North's;  the  mildness  of  the  one 
with  the  harshness  of  the  other;  the  certain  efficacy,  as 


i775l  Congress  vs.  Parliament  113 

proved  by  experience,  of  his  proposition  with  the 
unknown  hazard  of  that  of  the  Prime  Minister;  the 
universality  of  the  principle  in  one  case,  with  the  partial 
applicability  and  opportunism  displayed  in  the  other. 

He  dilated  on  the  historical  fact  that  the  principle  of 
granted  and  unlimited,  rather  than  enforced  and  fixed 
revenue,  had  established  the  greatness  of  Great  Britain. 
The  principle  applied  to  the  colonies,  rich  in  natural 
resources,  would  have  a  like  result,  augmenting  the 
resources  of  the  Empire  far  more  than  stated  compul 
sory  taxation. 

"What  is  the  soil  or  climate  where  experience  has  not 
universally  proved  that  the  voluntary  flow  of  heaped-up 
plenty,  bursting  from  the  weight  of  its  own  rich  luxuriance, 
has  ever  run  with  a  more  copious  stream  of  revenue  than 
could  be  squeezed  from  the  dry  husks  of  oppressed  indi 
gence  by  the  straining  of  all  the  politic  machinery  in  the 
world?"  If  ever  there  was  a  country  qualified  to  produce 
wealth,  it  is  India.  Yet,  when  you  attempted  to  extract 
revenue  from  Bengal,  you  were  obliged  to  return  in  loan 
what  you  had  taken  in  imposition. 

Let  the  colonies  always  keep  the  idea  of  their  civil  rights 
associated  with  your  government,  and  no  force  under 
heaven  will  be  of  power  to  tear  them  from  their  allegiance. 
This  is  the  true  Act  of  Navigation  which  binds  to  you  the 
commerce  of  the  colonies,  and  through  them  secures  to  you 
the  wealth  of  the  world.  Magnanimity  in  politics  is  the 
truest  wisdom;  and  a  great  empire  and  little  minds  go  ill 
together. 

Burke  then  moved  the  first  of  his  propositions,  which 
was  negatived  by  so  decisive  a  vote  (270  to  80)  that  he 
did  not  move  the  others,  since  it  was  evident  that 
Parliament  was  determined  to  assert  supremacy  over 
the  colonies — though  as  Burke  continually  reminded  it, 

8 


ii4  American  Debate  [1774- 

it  made  no  adequate  military  provision  for  enforcing 
this.  Later,  when  war  resulted  from  this  determination, 
and  disaster  followed  from  this  lack  of  preparation, 
Burke  could  not  refrain  from  expressing  his  "I  told 
you  so"  in  the  famous  speech  found  in  many  collec 
tions  of  eloquence,  beginning: 

"  But,  Mr.  Speaker,  'we  have  a  right  to  tax  America.' 
Oh,  inestimable  right!  Oh,  wonderful,  transcendent  right! 
the  assertion  of  which  has  cost  this  country  thirteen 
provinces,  six  islands,  one  hundred  thousand  lives,  and 
seventy  millions  [of  pounds]  of  money!" 

King  George's  instigation  and  support  of  the  despotic 
acts  of  Parliament  against  the  colonies  had  by  this 
time  caused  leaders  of  the  patriots,  especially  those 
learned  in  constitutional  law,  boldly  to  arraign  the 
Crown  as  an  equal  offender  with  the  British  legislature. 
However,  they  still  were  able  to  call  themselves  loyal 
subjects  to  the  King  (though  they  did  so  without  the 
supplementary  benediction),  by  preserving  the  political 
distinction  between  his  person  and  his  office,  holding 
that  "the  King  can  do  no  wrong,"  and  that  his  evil 
acts  were  the  result  of  "bad  advice"  given  by  his 
counselors,  who  alone  were  responsible.  By  the  term 
Crown,  therefore,  they  implied  the  ministry,  or  the 
executive  department  of  government  as  distinguished 
from  the  legislative,  of  whose  control,  indeed,  it  was 
independent  in  many  respects,  exercising  in  the  name 
of  the  King  various  "prerogatives,"  which  included 
certain  rights  of  administration  in  the  royal  colonies. 

James  Wilson  on  the  Powers  of  the  Crown.  One  of 
the  first  American  statesmen  to  turn  his  attention  from 
Parliament  and  attack  the  tyrannical  acts  of  the  Crown 
was  James  Wilson,  of  Pennsylvania. 


i775l  Congress  vs.  Parliament  115 

Wilson  was  a  Scotsman,  of  university  education,  in 
which  he  had  devoted  special  attention  to  rhetoric  and 
logic,  the  perfect  balance  between  which  is  nowhere 
better  exemplified  than  in  his  speeches  and  his  other 
than  purely  legal  writings. 

Coming  to  America  in  1766  he  entered  the  law  office 
of  John  Dickinson  in  Philadelphia.  After  admission 
to  the  bar  he  removed  from  the  city,  and  finally  estab 
lished  himself  at  Carlisle,  Pa.,  where  he  distinguished 
himself  in  the  successful  conduct  of  an  important  land 
case.  He  himself  entered  extensively  into  land  specula 
tion,  which  resulted  disastrously.  Although  at  times 
lacking  money  properly  to  support  himself,  he  always 
contrived  to  send  remittances  to  his  widowed  mother  in 
Scotland,  keeping  her  in  ignorance  of  his  straits. 

He  found  time  amid  his  harassing  cares  to  speak 
and  write  for  the  colonial  cause,  doing  so  with  a  cogency 
of  argument  and  beauty  of  style  that  won  him  nomina 
tion  as  a  delegate  to  the  first  Continental  Congress, 
though  he  was  defeated  by  Joseph  Galloway,  who,  as 
we  have  seen,  afterwards  became  a  Tory.  He  was, 
however,  elected  to  the  provincial  convention  which 
met  at  Philadelphia  in  January,  1775,  to  take  action 
on  the  foregoing  "speech  from  the  throne"  and  the  des 
potic  acts  of  Parliament  in  relation  to  Massachusetts. 

Mr.  Wilson  moved  in  the  convention  that  these  acts 
were  unconstitutional  and  void.  He  supported  his 
resolutions  in  a  speech  which  was  afterwards  published 
under  the  title  of  In  Vindication  of  the  Colonies. 

He  asserted  that  the  Crown  by  its  prerogative  could 
not  alter  a  colonial  charter;  that  such  alteration  could 
be  legally  made  only  by  the  assent  of  the  colonial 
assembly;  that  force  employed  to  execute  the  Crown's 
alteration  was  illegal  and  could  be  legally  resisted,  the 


n6  American  Debate  [1774- 

right  to  do  so  being  founded  upon  both  the  letter  and 
the  spirit  of  the  British  constitution. 

" 'Id  rex  potest?  says  the  law,  'quod  de  jure  poles? — the 
king's  power  is  a  power  according  to  law."  His  commands, 
if  the  authority  of  Chief- Justice  [Matthew]  Hale  may  be 
depended  upon,  are  under  the  directive  power  of  the  law; 
and  consequently  are  invalid  if  unlawful.  "Commissions," 
says  my  Lord  [Edward]  Coke,  "are  legal,  and  are  like  the 
king's  writs ;  and  none  are  lawful  but  such  as  are  allowed  by 
the  common  law,  or  warranted  by  some  act  of  Parliament." 

The  action  complained  of  is  not  warranted  by  any  act  of 
Parliament,  because  any  such  act  is  void,  and  it  is  not 
pretended  that  it  is  warranted  by  the  common  law.  It  is 
not  warranted  by  the  royal  prerogative,  because  it  is  directly 
opposed  to  the  princip'es  and  the  ends  of  prerogative.  Upon 
what  foundation,  then,  does  it  rest?  Upon  none.  "Like 
an  enchanted  castle  it  may  terrify  those  whose  eyes  are 
affected  by  the  magic  influences  of  the  sorcerers,  despotism 
and  slavery;  but,  so  soon  as  the  charm  is  dissolved,  and  the 
genuine  rays  of  liberty  and  of  the  constitution  dart  in  upon 
us,  the  formidable  appearance  vanishes,  and  we  discover 
that  it  was  the  baseless  fabric  of  a  vision  that  never  had 
any  real  existence." 

Parliament  sent  a  circular  letter  to  the  colonial 
governors  forbidding  election  of  delegates  to  the  Con 
tinental  Congress  to  convene  in  May,  1775.  Notwith 
standing  this  all  the  colonies,  including  Georgia,  which 
had  not  been  represented  in  the  first  Congress,  chose 
representatives  to  this  one. 

Patrick  Henry's  Militant  Resolutions.  The  Virginia 
convention  to  choose  such  delegates  met  in  the  "Old 
Church"  at  Richmond  in  March.  The  leading  spirit 
was  Patrick  Henry.  His  speech  before  the  convention 
was  even  bolder  than  any  he  had  yet  delivered.  It  is 


i775l  Congress  vs.  Parliament  117 

the  most  popular  for  recitation  of  all  his  orations,  and 
therefore  is  found  in  many  school  readers  and  collections 
of  American  eloquence.1  It  has  been  called  "Patrick 
Henry's  individual  declaration  of  war  against  Great 
Britain."  It  was  delivered  in  support  of  Henry's 
resolutions  to  raise  a  force  of  provincial  militia  and  put 
the  colony  in  a  state  of  defense.  These  were  opposed  as 
premature  by  the  most  prominent  men  in  the  conven- 
.  tion.  Henry  was  alone  in  their  defense. 

One  who  heard  the  debate  thus  describes  Henry's 
delivery  of  the  oration : 

"Henry  rose  with  an  unearthly  fire  burning  in  his  eye.  He 
commenced  somewhat  calmly,  but  the  smothered  excite 
ment  began  more  and  more  to  play  upon  his  features  and 
thrill  in  the  tones  of  his  voice.  The  tendons  of  his  neck 
stood  out  white  and  rigid  like  whipcords.  His  voice  roared 
louder  and  louder,  until  the  walls  of  the  building,  and  all 
within  them,  seemed  to  shake  and  rock  in  its  tremendous 
vibrations.  Finally  his  pale  face  and  glaring  eyes  became 
terrible  to  look  upon.  Men  leaned  forward  in  their  seats, 
with  their  eyes  strained  forward,  their  faces  pale,  and  their 
eyes  glaring  like  the  speaker's.  His  last  exclamation,  '  Give 
me  liberty  or  give  me  death!'  was  like  the  shout  of  the 
leader  which  turns  back  the  rout  of  battle."2 

The  leading  opponents  of  the  resolutions  were  Rich 
ard  Bland,  Benjamin  Harrison,  Robert  Carter  Nicholas, 
and  Edmund  Pendleton. 

Sketch  of  Harrison.  Benjamin  Harrison,  though  he 
opposed  the  Stamp  Act  resolutions  of  Patrick  Henry  as 
impolitic,  became  shortly  thereafter  one  of  the  boldest 
of  the  patriots,  serving  on  the  intercolonial  Committee 

1  It  appears,  with  annotations,  in  volume  i.  of  A  merican  Orations, 
by  Johnston  and  Woodburn. 

1  From  Tyler's  Life  of  Patrick  Henry. 


n8  American  Debate  1*774- 

of  Correspondence,  and  representing  his  State  in  Con 
gress  for  four  successive  terms,  being  a  conspicuous 
advocate  of  united  resistance  to  Great  Britain  at  the 
outbreak  of  the  Revolution,  and  an  early  promoter  of 
separation  from  that  country.  As  chairman  of  the 
committee  of  the  whole  he  reported  both  Lee's  and 
Jefferson's  declarations  of  independence.  Later  in  life 
he  opposed  the  ratification  of  the  Federal  Constitution, 
but  when  this  instrument  was  adopted,  heartily  sup 
ported  it.  He  was  a  man  of  wisdom  rather  than  talent, 
candid,  courageous,  unselfish.  Although  he  had  a  keen 
sense  of  humor,  his  witticisms  were  chiefly  directed  at 
himself,  his  portly  and  gouty  person  forming  the  butt  of 
a  number  of  his  reported  remarks. 

Sketch  of  Nicholas.  Robert  Carter  Nicholas,  a 
graduate  of  William  and  Mary,  was  a  leading  lawyer  of 
Virginia  and  prominent  in  the  House  of  Burgesses  as  a 
member  of  the  conservative  or  "  planter  "  party.  When 
the  colonial  House  was  replaced  in  1777  by  the  State 
House  of  Delegates  he  served  as  a  member  of  this  body 
until  1779.  From  1766  to  1777  he  was  treasurer  of 
Virginia.  In  1773  he  became  a  member  of  the  inter 
colonial  Committee  of  Correspondence.  He  took  an 
active  part  in  all  the  important  conventions  of  the 
colony  and  State  during  his  lifetime,  which  terminated 
in  1780. 

Sketch  of  Pendleton.  Edmund  Pendleton,  though 
he  had  little  educational  advantages,  stood  high  among 
the  lawyers  and  legislators  of  Virginia.  He  was  a 
member  of  the  House  of  Burgesses  from  1752,  and  took  a 
leading  part  in  its  debates.  In  1764  he  was  one  of  the 
committee  that  petitioned  the  Crown  against  the 
threatened  Stamp  Act,  and  in  1766  he  voted  for  the 
resolution  that  the  Act  "did  not  bind  the  inhabitants  of 


1775]  Congress  vs.  Parliament  119 

Virginia/'  He  served  on  the  intercolonial  Committee 
of  Correspondence  in  1773,  and  in  the  Continental 
Congress.  He  presided  over  the  Virginia  convention 
from  1775  until  the  State  constitution  was  adopted  in 
1776,  when  he  was  placed  at  the  head  of  the  Committee 
of  Safety,  and  chosen  as  speaker  of  the  House  of  Dele 
gates  and  president  of  the  Chancery  Court.  With  Jeffer 
son  and  Chancellor  Wythe  he  revised  the  laws  of  the 
State.  In  1779,  when  the  Court  of  Appeals  was  estab 
lished,  he  was  made  its  president.  He  held  the  office 
until  his  death  in  1803.  He  presided  over  the  State 
convention  of  1788  to  pass  upon  the  Federal  Constitu 
tion,  of  which  he  was  an  active  supporter.  Said  Jeffer 
son,  "Taken  all  in  all  he  was  the  ablest  man  in  debate 
that  I  ever  met  with."  Washington  Irving  wrote  of 
him  that,  "He  was  schooled  in  public  life,  a  veteran  in 
council,  with  native  force  of  intellect,  and  habits  of 
deep  reflection." 

Henry 's  resolutions  were  passed,  and  a  committee 
was  appointed  to  prepare  a  plan  of  armed  defense  of 
Virginia.  Others  than  Henry  upon  it  were  George 
Washington,  Thomas  Jefferson,  and  Richard  Henry  Lee. 


CHAPTER  VI 

INDEPENDENCE 
1776 

Mecklenburg  [N.  C.]  Declaration  of  Independence — Controversy  over 
its  Authenticity — Proposal  of  American  Independence  by  Thomas 
Paine  [Pa.] — Sketch  of  Paine — Thoughts  on  Government  by  John 
Adams  [Mass.] — Address  of  Judge  William  Henry  Dray  ton 
[S.  C.]  to  Charleston  Grand  Jury  on  American  Independence — 
Sketch  of  Drayton — Opposing  Views  of  Patrick  Henry  and  John 
Adams  on  Foreign  Alliances — Secret  Committee  of  Congress 
Determines  on  Independence — Chairman  Franklin's  Letter  to 
Dutch  Friend  on  the  Subject— Silas  Deane  [Ct.]  Sent  as  Envoy  to 
Secure  French  Alliance — Sketch  of  Deane — Congress  Recommends 
Provincial  Governments  to  Suppress  British  Authority — Congress 
Recommended  by  Provincial  Governments  to  Declare  Independ 
ence — The  Virginia  Bill  of  Rights,  Drafted  by  George  Mason — 
Sketch  of  Mason — Declaration  of  Religious  Liberty — Modified  by 
James  Madison — Sketch  of  Madison — The  Act  Establishing 
Religious  Liberty  in  Virginia — Resolution  in  Congress  of  Richard 
Henry  Lee  [Va.]  to  Declare  Independence — Debate:  for  Postpone 
ment,  James  Wilson  [Pa.],  Robert  R.  Livingston  [N.  Y.J,  Edward 
Rutledge  [S.  C.],  John  Dickinson  [Pa.];  for  Adoption,  Mr.  Lee, 
John  Adams  [Mass.],  George  Wythe  [Va.] — Sketches  of  Livingston, 
Rutledge,  Adams,  and  Wythe — Congress  Appoints  Committee  to 
Draft  Formal  Declaration  of  Independence:  John  Adams,  Ben 
jamin  Franklin  [Pa.],  Livingston,  Roger  Sherman  [Ct.],  and 
Thomas  Jefferson  [Va.] — Sketches  of  Sherman  and  Jefferson — 
Jefferson  Drafts  the  Declaration — Debate  on  Lee's  Resolution  Con 
cluded — Triumph  of  John  Adams — Resolution  Adopted — Congress 
Amends  and  Passes  Jefferson's  Declaration — The  Omitted  Clause 
on  the  Slave  Trade — Celebrations — Speech  of  Samuel  Adams  [Mass.] 
on  "American Independence." 

THE  "next  gale  from  the  north,"  as  Patrick  Henry 
prophesied,  bore  the  "clash  of  resounding  arms'* 
• — at  the  battle  of  Lexington-Concord.    The  debate  of 
the  forum  gave  way  to  the  bloody  controversy  of  the 

I2O 


1776]  Independence  121 

field.  While  the  proceedings  of  the  second  Continental 
Congress,  which  met  shortly  after  the  battle,  are  in 
tensely  interesting  to  the  student  of  history,  they 
brought  forward  no  vital  issue  in  constitutional  govern 
ment,  and  so  are  here  omitted.  The  same  may  be  said 
of  the  debates  on  the  American  war  in  Parliament,  in 
which  oratory  of  the  highest  order  was  displayed,  but 
no  new  principles  were  elucidated,  except  in  relation  to 
international  law,  such  as  the  impressment  of  foreign 
seamen  and  the  employment  of  mercenaries  and  savage 
allies.  Discussion  of  the  first  of  these  issues  will  be 
reserved  for  presentation  in  connection  with  the  Second 
War  with  Great  Britain,  and,  since  the  debates  on  the 
second  took  place  after  the  American  Declaration  of 
Independence,  it  cannot  properly  be  treated  in  a  history 
of  American  controversy.  Indeed,  so  outrageous  to 
the  sentiment  of  humanity  were  the  reasons  presented 
for  employing  the  red  Indians  in  warfare,  that  the 
speeches  in  opposition  are  alone  worth  recording,  and 
that  as  examples  of  oratorical  invective  rather  than  of 
argument.  The  student  of  public  speaking  in  its  gen 
eral  aspect  is  therefore  referred  to  the  collections  of 
British  eloquence,  in  which  Chatham's  great  oration  in 
condemnation  of  the  British  conduct  of  the  war  will  be 
found,  as  well  as  the  equally  earnest,  though  inferior, 
speeches  by  other  Whigs,  such  as  Fox  and  John  Wilkes.  x 
The  great  issue  of  the  war  on  both  sides  of  the  Atlan 
tic  was,  of  course,  American  independence.  Months 
before  the  rebellion  assumed  the  formal  character  of  a 
revolution  by  the  Declaration  of  July  4, 1776,  the  ablest 
men  in  America  began  to  advocate  separation  from 
the  mother  country,  and  the  statesmen  of  continental 
Europe  confidently  to  expect,  and  the  Government  of 

1  See  Great  Debates  in  American  History,  vol.  i.,  chap.  viii. 


122  American  Debate  [1776 

Great  Britain  guiltily  to  fear,  this.  Indeed,  such  English 
friends  of  America  as  Lord  Chatham,  who  desired 
above  everything  else  that  the  colonies  be  preserved  to 
the  Empire  which  he  had  done  so  much  to  extend,  were 
sorrowfully  apprehensive  that  the  subjugating  spirit  of 
Great  Britain  would  drive  the  Americans  to  the  irre 
vocable  act  of  casting  off  all  allegiance  to  the  oppressor. 
Mecklenburg  Declaration  of  Independence.  It  is 
claimed  by  some  that  the  leaders  of  thought  in  the 
colonies  were  anticipated  in  advocating  independence 
by  a  group  of  backwoods  farmer  folk,  a  community  of 
Scotch-Irish  Presbyterians  in  Mecklenburg  County, 
N.  C.  While  the  second  Continental  Congress  was  in 
its  first  session,  in  May,  1775,  a  committee  representing 
the  militia  companies  of  Mecklenburg  County  adopted 
certain  resolutions.  The  set  of  these  passed  on  May 
31  is  on  record.  Anticipating  the  action  of  Congress  it 
declared  that  the  royal  commissions  in  the  several 
colonies  were  null  and  void;  that  the  constitutions  of 
the  colonies  were  suspended,  the  powers  of  govern 
ment  being  vested  in  the  provincial  assemblies  under 
direction  of  Congress;  and  that  the  inhabitants  of 
Mecklenburg  County  should  form  a  military  and  civil  or 
ganization  until  the  North  Carolina  provisional  govern 
ment  to  be  established  should  otherwise  provide,  or  until 
the  British  government  should  "resign  its  arbitrary  pre 
tensions  with  respect  to  America."  It  is  alleged  that  the 
committee  had  previously  passed  (on  May  20)  a  set 
of  resolutions  declaring  that  the  "political  bonds"  be 
tween  the  county  and  Great  Britain  were  "dissolved"; 
that  the  citizens  of  the  county  were  "absolved"  from 
"all  allegiance  to  the  British  Crown";  and  were  "a 
free  and  independent  people."  These  resolutions 
abounded  in  other  phrases  resembling  those  in  the 


1776]  Independence  123 

subsequent  national  Declaration  of  Independence  of 
July  4,  I776.1  ^ 

The  authenticity  of  the  second  set  of  resolutions  has 
been  the  subject  of  considerable  controversy  at  various 
times.  The  records  of  Mecklenburg  County  were 
destroyed  by  fire  in  1800,  and  it  is  claimed  that  the 
resolutions  of  May  20  were  destroyed  with  them. 
What  purported  to  be  a  true  copy  of  them  was  pub 
lished  in  1819,  when  a  controversy  had  arisen  through 
out  the  country  over  the  time  and  place  of  the  beginning 
of  the  movement  for  independence.  In  support  of  the 
authenticity  of  the  copy,  evidence  was  produced  that 
at  least  two  newspapers  of  North  Carolina  had  pub 
lished  the  resolutions  within  a  few  days  after  their 
passage,  though  these  issues  had  not  been  preserved; 
aged  men  testified  that  they  had  heard  the  resolutions 
read  at  Charlotte,  the  county-seat,  in  May,  1775,  and 
that  they  were  of  the  purport  claimed;  one  of  these 
men  stated  that  he  had  carried  the  resolutions  in  ques 
tion  to  Congress.  On  the  other  hand,  it  was  suggested 
that  the  resolutions  referred  to  in  the  contemporaneous 
newspapers  were  those  of  May  31,  and  that  the 
memories  of  the  witnesses  were  at  fault  through  the 
same  confusion.  Thomas  Jefferson  and  John  Adams, 
then  living,  declared  that,  if  the  resolutions  of  May  20 
had  been  presented  to  Congress,  they  did  not  know  of 
the  fact,  and  that  they  believed  them  spurious.  But 
those  who  upheld  their  authenticity  charged  Jefferson 
with  plagiarism  from  the  resolutions,  and  therefore  as 
interested  in  denying  knowledge  of  them.  The  resolu 
tions  of  May  20  were  generally  discountenanced 
until  1833,  when  their  authenticity  received  support  in 

1  The  full  text  of  this  Declaration    is  found  in  Great    Debates    in 
American  History,  vol.  i.,  p.  173. 


124  American  Debate  [1776 

the  discovery  of  a  proclamation  of  Josiah  Martin,  the 
royal  Governor  of  North  Carolina,  dated  August  8, 
1775,  denouncing  a  series  of  resolves  by  a  committee 
of  Mecklenburg  County,  printed  in  the  Cape  Fear 
Mercury,  declaring  "the  entire  dissolution  of  the  laws, 
government,  and  constitution  of  the  country.*'  How 
ever,  it  was  claimed  on  the  other  hand  that  the  resolu 
tions  of  May  31  could  also  be  thus  objected  to.  The 
last  evidence  in  the  controversy  was  brought  forward 
in  1838-47,  during  which  period  copies  of  old  news 
papers  were  discovered  containing  the  resolutions  of 
May  31,  but  no  record  or  mention  of  any  previous 
ones.  In  July,  1905,  there  appeared  in  Collier's  Weekly, 
New  York,  what  purported  to  be  a  facsimile  of  the 
publication  of  the  resolutions  of  May  20  in  the 
Cape  Fear  Mercury  referred  to  by  Governor  Josiah 
Martin,  but  evidence  has  been  adduced  that  this  was  a 
forgery.  The  government  of  North  Carolina  has 
officially  accepted  the  authenticity  of  the  "Mecklen 
burg  Declaration  of  Independence"  by  making  May 
20  a  State  holiday  in  its  honor,  and  a  statue  has  been 
erected  at  Charlotte  in  memory  of  the  alleged  signers  of 
the  document.  Nevertheless  the  principle  and  spirit  of 
independence  were  implicit  in  the  second  Mecklenburg 
resolutions  (of  May  31,  1775),  as  well  as  in  the  proceed 
ings  of  the  second  Continental  Congress  which  they 
anticipated. 

Paine 's  Proposal  of  Independence.  The  first  un 
questioned  proposal  of  American  independence  by  a 
man  of  prominence  was  that  of  Thomas  Paine,  of 
Philadelphia. 

Thomas  Paine  had  been  in  the  excise  service  in 
England  where  his  activities  in  a  local  Whig  club  and  a 
pamphlet  he  had  written  in  favor  of  increasing  the  pay 


1776]  Independence  125 

of  excisemen  had  given  him  the  reputation  of  an  un 
desirable  agitator  with  the  authorities,  and  in  1774  ne 
was  dismissed  from  the  service.  At  this  crisis  he  met 
Dr.  Franklin,  who  suggested  that  a  man  of  his  talents 
and  sentiments  would  do  well  for  himself  and  the 
country  in  America.  Accordingly,  provided  with  letters 
to  prominent  patriots,  he  came  to  Philadelphia.  With 
one  of  his  new  friends  he  founded  the  Pennsylvania 
Magazine,  a  patriotic  publication,  and  edited  it  for 
eighteen  months. 

On  January  9,  1776,  at  the  suggestion  of  a  fellow- 
citizen,  Dr.  Benjamin  Rush,  Paine  published  a  pam 
phlet  entitled  Common  Sense,  addressed  "to  the 
Inhabitants  of  America."  It  advocated  complete 
independence  in  a  forcible  popular  style  which  at  once 
made  the  author  a  man  of  note  throughout  the  colonies 
— indeed  far  more  influential  than  any  other  writer 
or  even  statesman  of  the  time.  Dr.  Rush  said  that  the 
book  "burst  forth  with  an  effect  that  has  rarely  been 
produced  by  types  and  paper  in  any  age  or  country." 
With  less  personal  interest  in  the  author  General  Wash 
ington  said  that  "it  worked  a  powerful  change  in  the 
minds  of  many  men."  In  later  years  Paine  arrogantly 
claimed  that  he  had  done  more  than  any  other  one  man, 
even  General  Washington,  in  establishing  the  Republic. 

In  the  second  article  of  Common  Sense,  entitled 
"Thoughts  on  the  Present  State  of  American  Affairs," 
Paine  argued : 

(1)  That  by  its  physical  nature  the  continent  of  America 
was  intended  to  be  independent  of  an  external  power. x 

(2)  Hatred  of  America  by  Great  Britain  had  pierced  too 
deep  for  reconciliation.    "Wherefore,  for  God's  sake  let  us 

*A  point  in  favor  of  the  "Monroe  Doctrine." 


126  American  Debate  [1776 

come  to  a  final  separation,  and  not  leave  the  next  generation 
to  be  cutting  throats  under  the  violated  unmeaning  names 
of  parent  and  child." 

(3)  Self-government  is  a  natural  right. 

(4)  Now  is  the  time  to  obtain  this;  to  delay  is  to  invite 
some  demagogue  to  assemble  the  desperate  and  discon 
tented  to  seize  the  reins  of  power  and  establish  a  despotism. 
"Ye  that  oppose  independence  now  .  .  .  are  opening  a 
door  to  eternal  tyranny  by  keeping  vacant  the  seat  of 
government." 

In  an  appendix  to  the  pamphlet  Paine  appealed  to 
Americans  to  bury  all  former  differences,  and  unite 
along  the  "single,  simple  line  of  independence."  Let 
the  names  of  Whig  and  Tory  be  extinct  and  let  no  other 
be  heard  than  those  of  "a  good  citizen,  an  open  and 
resolute  friend,  and  a  virtuous  supporter  of  the  rights 
of  mankind  and  of  the  FREE  AND  INDEPENDENT  STATES 
OF  AMERICA." 

Of  Paine's  political  writings  Leslie  Stephen  writes  as 
follows  in  the  Dictionary  of  National  Biography: 

"Paine  is  the  only  English  writer  who  expresses  with  un 
compromising  sharpness  the  abstract  doctrine  of  political 
rights  held  by  the  French  revolutionists.  His  relation  to  the 
American  struggle,  and  afterwards  to  the  revolution  of 
1789,  gave  him  a  unique  position,  and  his  writings  became 
the  sacred  books  of  the  extreme  radical  party  in  England. 
Attempts  to  suppress  them  only  raised  their  influence,  and 
the  writings  of  the  first  quarter  of  the  century  are  full  of 
proofs  of  the  importance  attached  to  them  by  friends  and 
foes.  Paine  deserves  whatever  credit  is  due  to  absolute 
devotion  to  a  creed  believed  by  himself  to  be  demonstrably 
true  and  beneficial.  He  showed  undeniable  courage,  and  is 
free  from  any  suspicion  of  mercenary  motives.  He  attached 
an  excessive  importance  to  his  own  work,  and  was  ready  to 


1776]  Independence  127 

accept  the  commonplace  that  his  pen  had  been  as  efficient 
as  Washington's  sword.  He  attributed  to  the  power  of  his 
reasoning  all  that  may  more  fitly  be  ascribed  to  the  singular 
fitness  of  his  formulas  to  express  the  political  passions  of  the 
time.  Though  unable  to  see  that  his  opponents  could  be 
anything  but  fools  and  knaves,  he  has  the  merit  of  sincerely 
wishing  that  the  triumph  should  be  won  by  reason  without 
violence.  With  a  little  more  'human  nature,'  he  would 
have  shrunk  from  insulting  Washington  or  encouraging  a 
Napoleonic  invasion  of  his  native  country  [England].  But 
Paine's  bigotry  was  of  the  logical  kind  which  can  see  only 
one  side  of  a  question,  and  imagines  that  all  political  and 
religious  questions  are  as  simple  as  the  first  propositions  of 
Euclid." 

Paine,  in  his  Common  Sense,  not  only  advocated 
American  independence,  but  also  outlined  a  scheme  of 
government  for  the  new  nation.  It  was  exceedingly 
superficial,  the  ideas  being  those  which  were  "in  the 
air"  at  the  time,  and  were  caught  up  by  Paine,  who  had 
the  absorbing  instinct  of  a  journalist  (in  general  philo 
sophy,  too,  as  well  as  in  political),  instead  of  the  con 
structive  originality  of  a  real  statesman,  and  it  is  not 
worth  presenting,  especially  as  it  had  no  influence  upon 
the  formation  of  either  the  Articles  of  Confederation  or 
the  Constitution. 

Common  Sense  was  by  many  ascribed  to  John  Adams, 
who  did  not  relish  the  attribution,  being  especially 
contemptuous  of  the  shallowness  of  Paine's  ideas  in 
regard  to  government.  Accordingly  in  the  same  year 
he  published  Thoughts  on  Government,  a  pamphlet 
which,  owing  to  the  necessity  of  the  colonies  establishing 
provincial  governments,  set  all  the  constructive  minds 
of  the  country  to  planning  constitutions,  so  that,  to  use 
Adams's  words,  "the  manufacture  of  governments" 


128  American  Debate  [1776 

became  "as  much  talked  of  as  that  of  saltpeter  was 
before." 

The  pamphlet  contributed  more  than  any  other 
influence  to  the  uniformity  of  the  new  State  constitu 
tions.  Especially  was  it  of  value  to  Virginia  in  forming 
its  government. 

Adams  was  especially  insistent  on  the  rule  of  the 
people.  To  a  Mr.  Hughes  of  New  York  he  wrote 
advising  against  that  province  choosing  governors  and 
other  officers  for  life  or  during  good  behavior. 

"The  people  ought  to  have  frequently  the  opportunity, 
especially  in  these  dangerous  times,  of  considering  the 
conduct  of  their  leaders,  and  of  approving  or  disapproving. 
You  will  have  no  safety  without  it." 

Dray  ton  on  Independence.  Another  early  advocate 
of  entire  separation  from  Great  Britain  was  William 
Henry  Dray  ton,  the  leading  jurist  of  South  Carolina, 
already  noted  as  largely  the  author  of  the  Declaration 
of  Rights  by  the  first  Continental  Congress.  By  the 
advice  of  the  second  Congress,  South  Carolina  formed  in 
March  a  provisional  government  and  adopted  a  con 
stitution.  In  the  framing  of  the  latter  Judge  Drayton 
took  a  leading  part,  and  was  fittingly .  chosen  Chief - 
Justice.  In  this  capacity  he  delivered  on  April  23,  1776, 
a  notable  address  to  the  grand  jury  of  Charleston.  This 
foreshadowed  the  Declaration  of  Independence  by 
Congress  on  July  4,  1776,  by  its  enumeration  of  the 
acts  of  the  King  and  Parliament  which  justified  the 
separation  of  the  colonies  from  the  Empire. 

He  congratulated  the  Grand  Jury  on  the  resumption  of 
trial  by  jury  in  the  province,  which  had  been  suspended  by 
the  royal  government  in  violation  of  the  principles  of  Magna 


Independence  129 

Charta,  and  which  was  now  under  the  protection  of  a  new 
constitution  of  government  independent  of  royal  authority 
— "a  constitution  which  arose  according  to  the  great  law  of 
nature  and  nations,  and  which  was  established  in  the  late 
Congress,  on  the  26th  of  March  last."1 

After  enumerating  the  various  oppressive  acts  of 
Parliament  and  the  King,  Judge  Drayton  related  the 
recent  aggressions  of  British  arms  in  their  enforcement : 
the  expedition  against  the  colonial  military  stores  at 
Concord,  which  he  claimed  was  an  act  of  war,  justify 
ing  the  resistance  of  the  patriots;  and  the  burning  by 
British  forces  of  the  unfortified  towns  of  Charlestown, 
Mass.,  Falmouth,  Mass.,  and  Norfolk,  Va.,  which  he 
said  was  a  series  of  acts  of  inhumanity  unjustified  by 
military  necessity. 2 

He  arraigned  Governor  Gage,  the  British  general-in- 
chief,  for  his  attempt,  in  conjunction  with  other  governors 
and  Colonel  John  Stuart,  superintendent  of  Indian  affairs 
in  the  southern  colonial  district,  to  instigate  the  savage  nations 
to  war  upon  the  southern  colonies,  and  indiscriminately  to 
massacre  man,  woman,  and  child.* 

He  also  arraigned  the  southern  royal  governors  for  arming 
slaves  against  their  masters. 

He  arraigned  the  British  government  for  passing  a  law, 
ex  post  facto,  to  justify  what  had  been  done  not  only  without 
law,  but  by  nature  unjust — the  act  of  December  21,  1775, 
to  impress  American  seamen  to  fight  against  their  country 
men.  "The  world,  so  old  as  it  is,  heretofore  had  never 

1  Judge  Drayton  refers  to  the  provincial  convention  and  not  to  the 
national  Congress,  which  was  then  in  session.  This  is  a  point  bearing 
on  the  question  which  subsequently  arose  of  the  original  nature  of  the 
State  government  of  South  Carolina,  whether  or  not  it  was  sovereign, 
and  wholly  independent  of  anything  like  Federal  creation. 

3  A  point  in  international  law. 

3  See  Dr.  David  Ramsay's  History  of  South  Carolina. 


130  American  Debate  [1776 

heard  of  so  atrocious  a  procedure:  it  has  no  parallel  in  the 
registers  of  tyranny." 

Judge  Drayton  then  compared  the  old  government 
of  South  Carolina  under  the  King  with  that  under  the 
new  constitution : 

Under  British  authority  the  governors  sent  over  to  the 
colonies  were  totally  unacquainted  with  "our  local  interests, 
the  genius  of  the  people,  and  our  laws."  They  generally 
supported  the  arbitrary  acts  of  the  ministry,  on  whom  they 
were  dependent  for  retention  in  office,  against  the  people, 
and  there  was  no  means  whereby  the  people  could  get  rid  of 
them. 

Under  the  rule  of  the  people  the  magistrates  were  chosen 
according  to  the  spirit  and  letter  of  the  Bible:  "their  gover 
nors  shall  proceed  from  the  midst  of  them."  The  people  were 
free  to  elect  a  man  from  their  number  intimately  acquainted 
with  their  true  interests,  their  genius,  and  their  laws;  and 
who  could  "without  the  least  difficulty  be  removed  and 
blended  in  the  common  mass.  "r 

In  the  same  manner  Judge  Drayton  compared  the 
British  limitations  of  American  property  by  taxation,  of 
our  manufacture  by  prohibition,  and  of  our  trade  by 
monopolization,  with  the  freedom  from  these  restric 
tions  under  the  new  constitution.  Liberty  to  buy  in 
the  cheapest  market  he  especially  extolled. 2 

While  he  expressed  his  willingness  that  the  colonies 
should  be  reconciled  with  Great  Britain  on  equitable 
terms,  and  with  guaranties  of  their  maintenance  such 
as  prescribed  by  Congress,  he  declared  it  his  opinion 
that  true  reconcilement  would  never  come  except  with 

1  A  point  in  the  question  of  the  Recall  of  Officials,  particularly  judges. 

2  Had  he  lived  in  the  time  of  Calhoun  he  would  undoubtedly  have 
been  a  "nullifier  "  in  the  Tariff  controversy. 


1776]  Independence  131 

our  complete  independence.  "The  Almighty  created 
America  to  be  independent  of  Britain."  He  concluded 
with  a  prayer  to  God  so  to  direct  the  judgment  of  his 
auditors  that  they  might  "act  agreeably  to  what  seems 
to  be  His  will,  revealed  in  behalf  of  America,  bleeding 
at  the  altar  of  liberty." 

Judge  Drayton  followed  this  address  by  others  of 
the  same  cogent  character,  notably  an  answer  to  the 
"Declaration"  of  Admiral  and  General  Howe  of  the 
1 9th  of  September,  1776,  proposing  conditions  of  peace. 

Judge  Drayton  was  a  delegate  to  Congress  in  1778, 
where  he  took  a  prominent  part  in  the  deliberations  on 
the  conciliatory  bills  of  Parliament.  He  also  wrote  a 
pamphlet  ridiculing  the  royal  "peace"  commissioners 
sent  to  America.  He  died  in  1779  in  the  midst  of  his 
Congressional  labors.  He  left  behind  him  a  manuscript 
history  of  the  American  Revolution  completed  to  the 
close  of  1778,  which  was  published  by  his  brother,  John 
Drayton,  LL.D.,  in  1821. 

Foreign  Alliances.  Long  before  the  Declaration  of 
Independence  of  July  4,  1776,  the  leading  spirits  in 
Congress  had  agreed  among  themselves  to  issue  it  when 
America  was  assured  of  the  support  of  one  or  more  of 
the  powerful  nations  of  continental  Europe,  preferably 
France  and  Spain,  the  inveterate  enemies  of  Great 
Britain. 

To  secure  such  an  alliance  Patrick  Henry  was  even 
willing  to  concede  territory.  John  Adams  was  in  favor 
of  continuing  the  struggle  alone  rather  than  lay  up 
trouble  for  the  future  of  the  nation  they  were  founding. 
He  believed  that  commercial  considerations  alone,  a 
share  in  the  rich  and  growing  American  trade  of  which 
Great  Britain  had  hitherto  possessed  the  monopoly, 
would  be  inducement  enough  to  secure  the  monetary 


132  American  Debate  [1776 

aid,  which  was  chiefly  what  the  country  required,  of  the 
continental  powers.  He  therefore  advised  the  making 
with  these  nations  of  treaties  of  commerce  alone,  saying, 
"We  should  separate  ourselves  as  far  as  possible  and  as 
long  as  possible  from  all  European  politics  and  wars." 

He  thus  anticipated  the  "Monroe  Doctrine,"  which 
his  son,  John  Quincy  Adams,  as  Secretary  of  State 
under  President  Monroe,  was  to  inaugurate  in  practical 
action. 

As  a  result  of  the  desire  of  Congress  for  foreign 
alliances,  on  November  25,  1775,  a  committee  headed 
by  Dr.  Franklin  was  appointed  for  secret  correspond 
ence  "with  the  friends  of  America  in  Great  Britain 
and  Ireland  and  other  parts  of  the  world.'1  The  final 
general  phrase  covered  the  real  purpose,  which  was  to 
sound  the  foreign  European  powers,  particularly 
France  and  Spain,  on  the  subject  of  an  alliance  recog 
nizing  American  independence.  Shortly  after  the 
formation  of  the  committee  Franklin  virtually  con 
fessed  that  this  was  its  object,  in  a  letter  to  a  M. 
Dumas  in  Holland,  a  friend  of  America,  asking  him  to 
"discover  the  disposition"  toward  it  of  the  various 
courts  through  their  ambassadors  at  The  Hague.  He 
suggested  the  arguments  that  M.  Dumas  was  to  use  in 
inviting  such  alliance :  the  firm  union  of  the  colonies,  and 
the  success  of  American  arms  and  of  the  new  navy 
(which  had  already  captured  a  number  of  British 
cruisers  and  transports). 

On  March  2,  1776,  Silas  Deane,1  of  Connecticut, 
was  commissioned  by  the  committee  to  go  to  Paris  in 

1  Silas  Deane  (1737-89)  was  born  at  Groton,  Ct.;  graduated  from 
Yale  in  1758,  and  admitted  to  the  bar  in  1761,  but  entered  into  mercan 
tile  business.  From  1 774  to  1 776  he  was  a  delegate  to  Congress.  For  his 
later  career  as  a  foreign  envoy,  see  the  encyclopaedias. 


1776]  Independence  133 

order  to  obtain  money  and  war  supplies  and  to  sound 
the  French  court  on  the  subject  of  alliance.  Almost 
at  the  moment  when  independence  was  declared  at 
Philadelphia,  Deane  assured  the  Minister  of  State  at 
Versailles,  the  Count  de  Vergennes,  that  such  a  declara 
tion  was  probably  made  at  the  time,  which  statement, 
because  Deane  had  received  no  advices  from  America 
since  his  commission,  is  evidence  that  the  action  had 
been  determined  upon,  if  not  in  Congress,  in  the  secret 
committee,  at  least  four  months  before  its  execution. 

Independent  State  Governments.  On  May  10, 1776, 
as  a  preliminary  step  to  independence,  Congress  recom 
mended  to  the  provincial  assemblies  "to  adopt  such 
governments  as  should,  in  the  opinion  of  the  representa 
tives  of  the  people,  best  conduce  to  the  happiness  and 
safety  of  their  constituents  in  particular,  and  America 
in  general."  On  May  15  Congress  supplemented  this 
recommendation  by  a  statement  of  causes  for  such 
action,  declaring  it  to  be  "absolutely  irreconcilable  to 
reason  and  good  conscience  for  the  people  of  these 
colonies  now  to  take  the  oaths  and  affirmations  neces 
sary  for  the  support  of  any  government  under  the  Crown 
of  Great  Britain, "  whose  authority  ought  to  be  "totally 
suppressed,"  and  taken  over  by  the  people — a  state 
ment  which  John  Adams,  who  had  inspired  it,  said 
inevitably  involved  absolute  independence  in  its 
extinguishment  of  all  British  authority,  whether  of 
Parliament,  Crown,  or  nation.  "It  cut  the  Gordian 
knot,"  said  Adams,  "which  bound  America  to  Great 
Britain." 

During  the  course  of  the  next  five  years  all  the  States 
adopted  constitutions  and  formed  governments  in  ac 
cordance  with  the  recommendation  of  Congress. 

State   Proposals   of   Independence.    Some  of   the 


134  American  Debate  [1776 

provincial  governments  had  already  expressed  their 
desire  for  separation  from  Great  Britain.  On  April 
22,  1776,  North  Carolina  empowered  its  delegates  in 
Congress  "to  concur  with  those  in  the  other  colonies 
in  declaring  independency,"  this  being  the  first  pro 
nouncement  in  favor  of  the  measure  by  any  colonial 
assembly  or  convention.  On  May  10  the  General 
Assembly  of  Massachusetts  directed  the  people  at  the 
approaching  election  of  representatives  to  that  body 
to  instruct  these  on  the  subject  of  independence,  and  on 
May  23  the  people  of  Boston  declared  that,  if  Congress 
decided  on  the  measure,  they  would  support  it  with 
"their  lives  and  the  remnants  of  their  fortunes."  On 
May  15,  1776,  the  convention  of  Virginia,  which  was 
met  to  form  a  State  government,  unanimously  in 
structed  its  delegates  in  Congress  to  propose  independ 
ence.  On  the  1 2th  of  June,  being  still  in  convention, 
it  passed  a  "Bill  of  Rights"  which  anticipated  the 
Declaration  of  Independence  by  Congress  in  its  enun 
ciation  of  natural  rights,  and  was  even  more  explicit 
as  to  the  principles  of  democratic  government.  It  was 
largely  drafted  by  George  Mason. 

Sketch  of  Mason.  More  than  any  of  the  Fathers 
Mason  set  his  mind  to  secure  the  vital  union  of  the 
colonies.  In  1769  he  drafted  the  non-importation 
resolutions  adopted  by  the  Virginia  convention,  dis 
cerning  in  this  common  agreement  of  the  colonies  the 
most  effective  bond  between  them  as  well  as  the  most 
telling  action  which  could  be  taken  against  the  commer 
cial  nation  that  was  oppressing  them;  he  shortly  after 
wards  exhibited  the  substantial  quality  of  his 
statesmanship  by  publishing  Extracts  from  the  Virginia 
Charters  with  Some  Remarks  Upon  Them,  to  justify 
legally  the  acts  of  the  Virginia  patriots.  On  July  18, 


1776]  Independence  135 

1774,  he  presented  to  the  people  of  his  county  a  series  of 
resolutions  recommending  a  Congress  of  the  colonies, 
and  the  policy  of  non-intercourse  with  Great  Britain, 
which  were  afterwards  adopted  by  the  Virginia  conven 
tion,  and  reaffirmed  by  the  Congress  to  whose  creation 
they  had  contributed.  For  family  reasons  he  declined 
an  election  to  Congress,  taking,  however,  charge  of  the 
executive  government  of  Virginia. 

James  Madison  pronounced  Mason  the  ablest  de 
bater  he  had  ever  known.  Thomas  Jefferson  called 
him  a"a  man  of  the  first  order  of  wisdom,  of  expan 
sive  mind,  profound  judgment,  cogent  in  argument, 
learned  in  the  lore  of  our  former  constitution  (the  Con 
federation)  and  earnest  for  the  republican  change  on 
democratic  principles" — the  last  being  a  remarkably 
significant  phrase. 

Mason  was  of  commanding  presence;  his  face  was 
dark  and  grave,  and  his  eyes  were  black  and  brilliant. 

Virginia  Bill  of  Rights.  The  following  is  a  synopsis 
of  the  "Bill  of  Rights"1: 

Section  i  declared  "that  all  men  are  by  nature  equally 
free  and  independent,  and  have  certain  inherent  rights,  of 
which,  when  they  enter  into  a  state  of  society,  they  cannot, 
by  any  compact,  deprive  or  divest  their  posterity;  namely, 
the  enjoyment  of  life  and  liberty,  with  the  means  of  acquir 
ing  and  possessing  property,  and  pursuing  and  obtaining 
happiness  and  safety." 

2.  "All  power  is  vested  in,  and  consequently  derived 
from,  the  people;  the  magistrates  are  their  trustees  and 
servants,  and  at  all  times  amenable  to  them." 

3.  As  a  logical  deduction   from  the  above  principles 
government  should  be  for  the  benefit,  etc.,  of  the  people, 

1  For  unabridged  text  see  Great  Debates  in  American  History,  vol. 
i.,  p.  184. 


136  American  Debate  [1776 

and,  when  found  not  to  be  so,  can  by  right  be  altered  or 
abolished  by  them. 

4.  No  emoluments  or  privileges  should  be  granted  except 
for  public  services,  and  offices  should  not  be  hereditary. 

5.  Legislative  and  executive  powers  should  be  distinct 
from   judiciary.1     Legislators   and   executives   should   be 
retired  at  fixed  periods  from  office,  and  frequent  elections 
should  be  held  to  choose  their  successors. 

6.  Elections  should  be  free  and  "all  men  having  suffi 
cient  evidence  of  permanent  common  interest  with,  and 
attachment  to,  the  community  have  the  right  of  suffrage," 
and  cannot  be  taxed,  governed,  etc.,  without  their  consent 
or  that  of  their  representatives. 

7.  Laws  should  not  be  suspended,  or  authority  executed, 
without  consent  of  the  people  or  their  representatives. 

8.  Trial  by  jury,  under  the  principles  and  practices  of 
the  common  law,  should  be  maintained. 

9.  Excessive  bail  ought  not  to  be  required,  nor  excessive 
fines  imposed,  nor  cruel  and  unusual  punishments  inflicted. 

10.  Search  warrants  or  body  seizures  on  mere  suspicion 
ought  not  to  be  granted. 

11.  Trial  by  jury  is  preferable  to  any  other  in  property 
cases  and  personal  suits. 

1 2.  Freedom  of  the  press  should  be  maintained. 

13.  Militia  are  the  proper  defense  of  a  free  state;  stand 
ing  armies  are  dangerous  to  liberty;  the  military  power 
should  be  subordinate  to  the  civil. 

14.  Uniformity  of  government  is  a  right  of  the  people, 
and  therefore  "no  government  separate  from,  or  independ 
ent  of,  the  government  of  Virginia  ought  to  be  erected  or 
established  within  the  limits  thereof."2 

1  This  provision  was  made  in  the  Virginia  constitution  adopted  on 
June  29,  1776 — the  first  time  the  principle  was  ever  adopted  in  govern 
ment.    See  Resolve  10  of  the  Declaration  of  Rights  of  the  first  Con 
tinental  Congress  on  page  88. 

2  A  most  important  pronouncement  in  its  bearing  on  the  later  con 
troversies  over  State  Rights  and  Secession. 


1776]  Independence  137 

15.  Free  government  is  based  on  justice,  frugality,  etc., 
and  can  be  preserved  only   "by  frequent  recurrence  to 
fundamental    principles."      [" Vigilance    is    the    price    of 
liberty."] 

1 6.  Freedom  of  religion  should  be  maintained. 

The  last  pronouncement  read  in  its  original  form,  as 
submitted  by  the  drafting  committee  to  the  convention : 

"That  all  men  should  enjoy  the  fullest  toleration  in  the 
exercise  of  religion,  according  to  the  dictates  of  conscience, 
unpunished  and  unrestrained  by  the  magistrate,  unless, 
under  color  of  religion,  any  man  disturb  the  peace,  happiness, 
or  safety  of  society." 

James  Madison,  who  had  just  made  his  entrance  into 
public  life  at  the  age  of  twenty-five  through  his  election 
as  delegate  to  the  convention,  was  a  member  of  the 
committee.  Although  there  is  no  record  of  his  urging 
any  objection  in  committee  to  the  form  of  the  declara 
tion,  he  probably  did  so,  and  was  overruled,  for  when 
it  was  presented  to  the  convention  he  made  what  was  in 
effect  a  minority  report  by  moving  that  the  section  be 
amended  to  read : 

"That  all  men  are  equally  entitled  to  the  full  and  free 
exercise  of  religion  according  to  the  dictates  of  conscience, 
and  that  no  man  or  class  of  men  ought,  on  account  of 
religion,  to  be  invested  with  peculiar  emoluments  or 
privileges,  nor  subjected  to  any  penalties  or  disabilities, 
unless,  under  color  of  religion,  the  preservation  of  equal 
liberty  and  the  existence  of  the  State  be  manifestly  en 
dangered." 

Madison  supported  his  amendment  by  pointing  out 
the  distinction  between  tolerating  religion,  which 
assumed  that  the  civil  government  had  jurisdiction  in 


138  American  Debate  [1776 

the  matter,  and  asserting  liberty  of  conscience  as  a 
right,  which  did  not  come  under  such  jurisdiction  except 
in  the  case  of  conflict  with  the  State's  fundamental 
right  of  self-preservation.  This  was  the  position  after 
wards  ably  maintained  by  Thomas  Paine  in  his  Rights 
of  Man  (1792). 

The  convention  felt  the  force  of  Madison's  argument, 
and  struck  out  from  the  section  the  principle  of  tolera 
tion,  but,  with  commendable  restraint,  omitted  the 
condition  limiting  the  exercise  of  free  worship  when 
destructive  of  civil  liberty  as  obvious  and  hence  un 
necessary.  x 

The  section  in  its  adopted  form  read : 

' '  That  religion,  or  the  duty  we  owe  to  our  Creator,  and  the 
manner  of  discharging  it,  can  be  directed  only  by  reason  and 
conviction,  not  by  force  or  violence;  and,  therefore,  all  men 
are  equally  entitled  to  the  free  exercise  of  religion  according 
to  the  dictates  of  conscience." 

Madison  was  the  most  deeply  versed  American  of  the 
time  in  the  subject  of  religious  liberty.  Indeed,  it  was 
to  secure  it  that  he  had  accepted  election  to  the  con 
vention.  It  is  true  that  he  had  carried  with  him  to 
Princeton  the  general  interest  in  civil  rights  prevalent  in 
Virginia  as  in  the  other  colonies,  due  to  British  aggres- 

1  This  must  have  been  already  apparent  to  Madison,  but  then  and 
throughout  his  career  he  believed  in  educating  the  people  by  expressing 
fundamental  principles  in  detail,  however  plain  and  inevitable  some  of 
the  implications  might  be.  It  would  have  been  well  if  the  limiting  clause 
had  been  retained,  for  the  Bill  of  Rights  was  largely  incorporated  into  the 
constitution  of  the  nation  and  of  many  States,  and  if  the  clause  had  been 
expressed  in  these,  the  chief  argument  in  support  of  Polygamy,  namely 
that  it  was  a  religious  institution  and  so  not  under  the  jurisdiction  of 
government,  would  have  possessed  even  less  effectiveness  than  it  had 
among  shallow  thinkers. 


1776]  Independence  139 

sion  in  matters  of  taxation,  for  this  is  indicated  by  his 
foundation  of  the  American  Whig  Society  (see  page  17), 
but  he  soon  became  specially  concerned  with  the  prior 
and  still  prevailing,  though  temporarily  obscured,  issue 
of  religious  freedom,  occasioned  by  the  British  estab 
lishment  of  the  Church  of  England  in  many  of  the 
colonies.  He  evidently  contemplated  the  ministry  as  a 
profession,  for,  after  graduation  (his  characteristic 
application  is  shown  by  his  fulfilling  the  Junior  and 
Senior  courses  in  one  year) ,  he  spent  another  year  at  the 
college  chiefly  in  studying  Hebrew.  But  ill-health,  and 
his  sense  of  duty  toward  his  family,  which  was  only  in 
moderate  circumstances,  caused  him  to  devote  himself 
to  the  education  of  his  younger  brothers  and  sisters 
while  pursuing  his  theological  studies  at  home.  Here, 
removed  from  the  agitation  in  the  east  over  civil  rights, 
the  religious  intolerance  of  the  Virginia  clergy  aroused 
his  special  animosity,  overshadowing  in  importance 
every  other  question.  In  a  letter  to  his  friend,  William 
Bradford,  Jr.,  of  Philadelphia,  afterwards  Attorney- 
General  in  Washington's  Administration,  Madison 
wrote  in  1774": 

"But  away  with  politics  [i.e.,  the  controversy  over  taxa 
tion,  etc.,  with  Great  Britain].  .  .  .  That  diabolical,  hell- 
conceived  principle  of  persecution  rages  among  some;  and, 
to  their  eternal  infamy,  the  clergy  can  furnish  their  quota 
of  imps  for  the  purpose." 

Here  Madison  cited  the  imprisonment  of  a  number  of 
men  for  publishing  their  religious  sentiments,  although 
these  were  in  the  main  orthodox.  He  also  observed  that, 
if  the  Church  of  England  had  been  established  in  the 

1  See  The  Writings  of  James  Madison,  vol.  i. 


140  American  Debate  [1776 

northern  colonies,  the  whole  country  would  have  al 
ready  been  reduced  to  "  slavery  and  subjection." 

Madison  was  elected  to  the  Virginia  Assembly  under 
the  new  constitution  of  the  State.  He  failed  of  reelec 
tion  because  of  his  refusal  to  make  a  personal  canvass  of 
the  district,  "treating"  by  the  candidates  being  a  cus 
tom  in  Virginia  which  was  expected  by  the  electors. 
It  was  time,  said  Madison,  that  "a  more  chaste  mode  of 
conducting  elections"  be  introduced,  and  he  would  set 
an  example  by  refraining  from  electioneering,  and 
allowing  his  actions  as  legislator  to  speak  for  him.  To 
this  resolution  he  adhered  through  his  early  career,1 
probably  to  the  advantage  of  the  country,  for,  in  his 
frequent  periods  of  retirement  from  public  life,  and  in 
the  conduct  of  his  official  sphere  in  a  lower  position 
than  that  to  which  he  was  entitled,  he  rendered  service 
to  the  cause  of  free  yet  stable  government  greater  than 
that  performed  by  any  man  in  high  office  in  his  genera 
tion.  Thus  to  him,  rather  than  to  Jefferson  (with 
whom  he  early  established  a  political  partnership  which 
lasted  until  Jefferson's  death,  and  in  which  Madison 
was  the  forensic  representative  and  the  most  indefatig 
able  worker) ,  is  really  due  the  establishment  of  complete 
religious  freedom  in  Virginia.  It  is  true  that,  seven 
years  before,  Jefferson  had  drafted  an  "Act  for  Estab 
lishing  Religious  Freedom"  in  the  State,  but  it  was 
Madison  who  secured  its  passage  in  1786  by  the  vigor 
ous  fight  he  made  in  the  Assembly  by  postponing,  when 
he  could  not  defeat,  propositions  to  lay  a  tax  for  the 

1  When  the  Constitution  was  adopted,  largely  by  his  efforts,  Madison 
especially  attracted  the  animosity  of  the  Anti-Federalists  in  Virginia, 
and  Patrick  Henry,  their  leader,  "gerrymandered"  Madison's  district 
to  keep  him  out  of  Congress.  Madison  thereupon  abandoned  his  early 
resolution,  and  made  a  successful  electioneering  campaign. 


1776]  Independence  141 

benefit  of  the  clergy,  and  by  agitating  the  question 
among  the  people  by  circulating  arguments  against  the 
taxes  with  remonstrances  to  be  signed  by  the  citizens. 
The  voice  of  the  people  evoked  by  this  means  was  too 
strong  to  be  resisted,  and  the  legislature  passed  the  act. 
Madison  kept  Jefferson,  who  was  at  the  time  Minister 
to  France,  in  touch  with  the  progress  of  the  movement, 
and  when  the  act  was  passed,  Jefferson,  after  speaking 
of  the  enthusiasm  it  had  evoked  among  European 
republicans,  its  translation  into  French  and  Italian, 
and  its  insertion  in  the  monumental  Encyclopedic,  etc., 
wrote : 

"It  is  comfortable  to  see  the  standard  of  reason  at  length 
erected,  after  so  many  ages  during  which  the  human  mind 
has  been  held  in  vassalage  by  kings,  priests,  and  nobles; 
and  it  is  honorable  for  us  to  have  produced  the  first  legisla 
ture  who  had  the  courage  to  declare  that  the  reason  of  man 
may  be  trusted  with  the  formation  of  his  own  opinions." 

Jefferson  so  highly  regarded  his  part  in  this  service 
to  the  cause  of  liberty  that  by  his  order  his  authorship 
of  the  act  was  joined  with  that  of  the  Declaration  of 
Independence  in  the  inscription  on  his  tomb.  The 
acts  themselves  and  the  institutions  which  each  per 
petuates  are  monuments  of  James  Madison,  who  made 
the  bill  of  religious  liberty  a  statute,  and  of  John  and 
Samuel  Adams,  who  more  than  any  of  the  Fathers  of 
the  Republic  established  our  independence. 

Backed  by  the  support  of  patriots  north  and  south, 
and  the  mandate  of  his  own  colony,  Richard  Henry 
Lee,  of  Virginia,  on  behalf  of  the  delegates  from  that 
colony,  submitted  to  Congress  on  June  7,  1776,  the 
following  resolution : 


i42  American  Debate  [1776 

"  That  the  United  Colonies  are,  and  of  right  ought  to  be,  free 
and  independent  States,  that  they  are  absolved  from  all  allegiance 
to  the  British  Crown,  and  that  all  political  connection  between 
them  and  the  state  of  Great  Britain  is,  and  ought  to  be,  totally 
dissolved." 

There  were  two  supplementary  resolutions:  (i)  that 
foreign  alliances  be  sought;  (2)  that  a  plan  of  State 
confederation  be  prepared  and  presented  to  the  colonies 
for  ratification. 

Debate  on  Lee's  Declaration.  Thomas  Jefferson, 
in  his  Writings  (vol.  i.,  p.  10),  has  given  an  account  of 
this  debate.  In  this  debate,  as  in  the  subsequent  one 
on  the  same  resolution  (on  July  i),  John  Adams  was  the 
leader.  Adams  was  at  the  height  of  his  mental  powers 
(forty-one  years  of  age),  and  speaking  on  a  subject 
to  which  he  had  devoted  his  mind  and  soul  for  years, 
unburdening  himself  of  weighty  thoughts  that  he 
had  repressed  in  public  for  policy's  sake.  Indeed,  he 
regarded  the  Declaration  as  his  special  "act."  Many 
historians  have  observed  that  after  this  triumph  Adams 
declined  in  intellectual  power,  or,  rather,  that  this  was 
impaired  by  an  abnormal  development  of  his  moral 
characteristics,  vanity,  self-sufficiency,  and  censorious- 
ness.  Thus  Charles  Mackey  says,  in  his  Founders  of 
the  American  Republic: 

"Whom  the  gods  love,  die  young,*  said  the  ancients. 
Perhaps,  and  most  probably,  if  John  Adams  had  died 
immediately  after  the  Declaration  of  Independence,  his 
name,  next  to  that  of  Washington,  might  have  stood  highest 
and  brightest  in  the  long  muster-roll  of  American  worthies." 

Of  Adams's  mental  abilities  Theodore  Parker  says,  in 
his  Historic  Americans: 


1776]  Independence  143 

"Mr.  Adams  had  a  great  mind,  quick,  comprehensive, 
analytical,  not  easily  satisfied  save  with  ultimate  causes, 
tenacious  also  of  its  treasures.  His  memory  did  not  fail 
until  he  was  old.  With  the  exception  of  Dr.  Franklin,  I 
think  of  no  American  politician  in  the  eighteenth  century 
that  was  his  intellectual  superior.  For,  though  Hamilton 
and  Jefferson,  nay,  Jay  and  Madison  and  Marshall,  sur 
passed  him  in  some  high  qualities,  yet  no  one  of  them  seems 
to  have  been  quite  his  equal  on  the  whole.  He  was  eminent 
in  all  the  three  departments  of  the  Intellect — the  Under 
standing,  the  practical  power;  the  Imagination,  the  poetic 
power,  and  the  Reason,  the  philosophic  power.  ...  At 
the  age  of  forty  he  was  the  ablest  lawyer  in  America.  He 
was  the  most  learned  in  historic  legal  lore,  the  most  profound 
in  the  study  of  first  principles." 

Of  Adams's  physical  appearance  and  his  social  quali 
ties  his  grandson  and  biographer,  Charles  Francis 
Adams,  writes: 

"In  figure  John  Adams  was  not  tall,  scarcely  exceeding 
middle  height,  but  of  a  stout,  well-knit  frame,  denoting 
vigor  and  long  life,  yet,  as  he  grew  old,  inclining  more  and 
more  to  corpulence.  His  head  was  large  and  round,  with  a 
wide  forehead  and  expanded  brows.  His  eye  was  mild  and 
benignant,  perhaps  even  humorous,  when  he  was  free  from 
emotion,  but,  when  excited,  it  fully  expressed  the  vehe 
mence  of  the  spirit  that  stirred  within.  His  presence  was 
grave  and  imposing  on  serious  occasions,  but  not  unbending. 
He  delighted  in  social  conversation,  in  which  he  was  some 
times  tempted  to  what  he  called  'rodomontade.'  But  he 
seldom  fatigued  those  who  heard  him ;  for  he  mixed  so  much 
of  natural  vigor,  of  fancy,  and  of  illustration  with  the  stores 
of  his  acquired  knowledge,  as  to  keep  alive  their  interest 
for  a  long  time.  His  affections  were  warm,  though  not 
habitually  demonstrated,  towards  his  relatives.  His  anger, 
when  thoroughly  roused,  was,  for  a  time,  extremely  violent, 


144  American  Debate  [1776 

but  when  it  subsided,  it  left  no  trace  of  malevolence  behind. 
Nobody  could  see  him  intimately  without  admiring  the 
simplicity  and  truth  which  shone  in  his  action,  and  standing 
in  some  awe  at  the  reserved  power  of  his  will.  Mr.  Adams 
was  very  impatient  of  cant,  of  sciolism,  or  of  opposition  to 
any  of  his  deeply-established  convictions." 

In  his  famous  speech  on  "Eloquence  of  the  American 
Revolution,"  Rufus  Choate  places  John  Adams  at  the 
head  of  all  the  orators  of  that  period. 

"The  leader  in  that  great  argument  was  John  Adams,  of 
Massachusetts.  He,  by  concession  of  all  men,  was  the 
orator  of  that  Revolution.  .  .  .  Other  and  renowned 
names,  by  written  or  spoken  eloquence,  cooperated  effec 
tively,  splendidly,  to  the  grand  result, — Samuel  Adams, 
Samuel  Chase,  Jefferson,  Henry,  James  Otis  in  an  earlier 
stage.  .  .  .  Each  brought  some  specialty  of  gift  to  the  work : 
Jefferson,  the  magic  of  style,  and  the  habit  and  the  power  of 
delicious  dalliance  with  those  large,  fair  ideas  of  freedom  and 
equality  so  dear  to  man,  so  irresistible  in  that  day;  Henry, 
the  indescribable  and  lost  spell  of  the  speech  of  the  emotions, 
which  fills  the  eye,  chills  the  blood,  turns  the  cheek  pale, — 
the  lyric  phase  of  eloquence,  the  'fire-water,'  as  Lamartine 
has  said,  of  the  Revolution,  instilling  into  the  sense  and  the 
soul  the  sweet  madness  of  battle;  Samuel  Chase,  the  tones 
of  anger,  confidence,  and  pride,  and  the  art  to  inspire  them. 
John  Adams's  eloquence  alone  seemed  to  have  met  every 
demand  of  the  time;  as  a  question  of  right,  as  a  question  of 
prudence,  as  a  question  of  immediate  opportunity,  as  a 
question  of  feeling,  as  a  question  of  conscience,  as  a  question 
of  historical  and  durable  and  innocent  glory,  he  knew  it  all 
through  and  through;  and  in  that  mighty  debate,  which, 
beginning  in  Congress  as  far  back  as  March  or  February, 
1776,  had  its  close  on  the  second  ...  of  July,  he  presented, 
in  all  its  aspects,  to  every  passion  and  affection  .  .  .  the 
appeal  .  .  .  day  after  day,  until,  on  the  third  of  July,  1776, 


1776]  Independence  145 

he  could  record  the  result,  writing  thus  to  his  wife:  'Yes 
terday  the  greatest  question  was  decided  which  ever  was 
debated  in  America;  and  a  greater,  perhaps,  never  was,  nor 
will  be,  among  men.' 

' '  Of  that  series  of  spoken  eloquence  all  is  perished ;  not  one 
reported  sentence  [of  Adams]  has  come  down  to  us.  The 
voice  through  which  the  rising  spirit  of  a  young  nation 
sounded  out  its  dream  of  life  is  hushed.  The  great  spokes 
man  of  an  age  unto  an  age  is  dead." 

Sketch  of  Livingston.  Robert  R.  Livingston's 
father,  bearing  the  same  name,  was  an  energetic  member 
of  the  Stamp  Act  Congress.  The  son  is  generally 
distinguished  from  the  other  members  of  the  Livingston 
connection,  the  most  powerful  politically  in  the  early 
history  of  the  country,  as  " Chancellor  Livingston," 
having  held  this  office  for  the  State  of  New  York  from 
1783  to  1801.  In  this  capacity  he  administered  the 
oath  to  Washington  on  that  General's  inauguration  as 
first  President  of  the  United  States.  In  early  life  he  was 
partner  of  John  Jay  in  law.  He  was  removed  by  the 
royal  Governor  Tryon  from  the  office  of  New  York  City 
recorder  in  1775  because  of  his  sympathy  with  the 
patriots.  He  entered  Congress  in  1775,  and  served  on 
important  committees,  the  chief  being  that  to  draft  the 
Declaration  of  Independence.  However,  he  did  not 
sign  that  instrument,  having  been  called  to  New  York 
to  take  part  in  the  framing  of  the  constitution  of  that 
State  by  the  provincial  convention. x 

Sketch  of  Rutledge.  Edward  Rutledge,  like  most  of 
the  eminent  lawyers,  had  studied  his  profession  in 

1  For  Livingston's  later  career,  including  his  association  with  Robert 
Fulton  in  the  steamboat  Clermont,  and  his  services  to  American  agri 
culture,  see  Appleton's  Cyclopedia  of  American  Biography.  Franklin 
called  him  "  the  Cicero  of  America." 


146  American  Debate  [1776 

London.  A  year  after  his  return  to  his  native  city  of 
Charleston  he  was  elected  with  his  brother  John  to  the 
first  Continental  Congress,  being  the  youngest  member 
of  that  body.  Less  eloquent  than  John,  whom  Patrick 
Henry  called  "by  far  the  greatest  orator"  of  Congress, 
he  nevertheless,  by  reason  of  superior  ability,  played  a 
more  active  part  in  practical  work,  serving  on  important 
committees  and  missions.  Later  in  the  Revolution  he 
fought  gallantly  in  defense  of  Charleston.  After  the  war 
he  devoted  himself  to  the  service  of  his  State  as  legisla 
tor  and  Governor.  In  the  former  capacity  he  opposed 
the  slave-trade,  and  secured  the  abolition  of  primogeni 
ture  in  South  Carolina.  He  declined  the  office  of  Associ 
ate-Justice  of  the  Supreme  Court  of  the  United  States. 
Sketch  of  Wythe.  George  Wythe  was  reputed  the 
most  learned  lawyer  in  America.  He  was  Jefferson's 
teacher,  and,  from  1776  to  1789,  he  was  professor  of  law 
at  William  and  Mary,  instructing,  among  other  men 
who  became  distinguished  statesmen  and  jurists,  James 
Monroe  and  John  Marshall.  He  became  Chancellor  of 
Virginia  in  1786.  Henry  Clay  was  clerk  of  his  court, 
and  was  greatly  inspired  by  him.  As  Chancellor  he  was 
the  first  judge  to  decide  the  vexed  question  of  British 
debts  contracted  in  America  before  the  war;  he  held 
them  recoverable,  although  there  was  high  public 
feeling  against  such  a  view.  He  added  to  the  courage 
and  integrity  thus  displayed,  humanity,  freeing  and 
providing  for  his  slaves  shortly  before  his  death.  His 
Decisions  were  published  in  1795.  Jefferson  made 
notes  for  a  biography  of  Wythe  which  he  never  com 
pleted.  One  note  reads: 

"  No  man  ever  left  behind  him  a  character  more  venerated 
than  George  Wythe.    His  virtue  was  of  the  purest  kind,  his 


1776]  Independence  147 

integrity  inflexible,  his  justice  exact.  He  might  truly  be 
called  the  Cato  of  his  country,  without  the  avarice  of  the 
Roman,  for  a  more  disinterested  person  never  lived.  He  was 
of  middle  size,  his  face  manly,  comely,  and  engaging.  Such 
was  George  Wythe,  the  honor  of  his  own  and  the  model  of 
future  times." 

We  further  condense  Jefferson's  account  of  the  first 
debate  on  Lee's  resolution  to  declare  American  in 
dependence. 

On  June  8  and  10,  1776,  the  resolution  was  opposed 
by  James  Wilson  (Pa.),  Robert  R.  Livingston  (N.  Y.), 
Edward  Rutledge  (S.  C.),  John  Dickinson  (Pa.)  et  a/., 
as  premature. 

Congress  should  wait  until  the  people,  without  whose 
support  the  resolution  would  not  be  effective,  "drove  us 
into  it."  The  middle  colonies  were  not  yet  ready  for  the 
declaration,  some  of  them  having  expressly  forbidden  their 
delegates  to  consent  to  it.  They,  however,  were  "fast 
ripening  in  its  favor,"  and  their  conventions,  now  sitting, 
or  shortly  to  sit,  would  declare  the  voice  of  their  colonies. 
If  Congress  now  passed  the  declaration,  the  delegates  to  it 
from  these  States  must  retire,  and  possibly  their  colonies 
might  secede  from  the  union,  which  would  weaken  it  more 
than  any  foreign  alliance  possibly  to  be  secured  by  the 
declaration  would  strengthen  it.  Perhaps  these  allies, 
recognizing  the  desperate  situation  in  which  the  declaration 
would  place  us,  would  make  severe  terms  with  us.  Probably 
France  and  Spain,  jealous  of  a  rising  power  which  would 
certainly  some  day  strip  them  of  their  American  possessions, 
would  prefer  to  join  with  Great  Britain,  in  order  to  get 
back  territory  already  lost.  Certainly  we  should  wait  for  a 
report  of  the  agent  [Silas  Deane]  sent  to  France.  We  should 
wait,  moreover,  for  the  result  of  the  present  military  cam 
paign  (in  which  no  foreign  alliance,  if  now  obtained,  could 


148  American  Debate  [1776 

help  us),  and,  if  it  were  favorable,  we  could  make  better 
terms  with  allies. 

Richard  Henry  Lee  (Va.),1  John  Adams  (Mass.), 
and  George  Wythe  (Va.),  supported  the  resolution. 
They  declared: 

No  State  could  forbid  its  delegation  to  Congress  from 
assenting  to  a  statement  of  fact.  Independence  already 
existed.  The  King  had  dissolved  the  bond  between  him 
and  the  colonies  by  assenting  to  the  late  prohibitory  act  of 
Parliament,  declaring  us  out  of  his  protection,  and  by 
levying  war  on  us.  Allegiance  and  protection  being  recipro 
cal,  we  were  absolved  from  the  former. 

The  delegates  from  only  two  colonies,  Pennsylvania  and 
Maryland,  were  definitely  instructed  against  the  resolution. 
The  former  colony  gave  these  instructions  a  year  ago  before 
independence  was  a  fact.  The  resolutions  of  May  10  and 
15  directing  the  colonies  to  form  new  governments  had 
shown  that  the  majority  of  the  people  of  Pennsylvania  and 
Maryland  were  more  radical  than  their  representatives 
in  their  colonial  assemblies.  The  backwardness  of  these 
colonies  was  due  to  the  influence  of  proprietary  power  and 
to  freedom  from  hostilities  in  the  war.  These  causes  were 
not  likely  soon  to  be  removed.  It  would  be  vain  to  wait  for 
perfect  unanimity,  since  it  was  impossible  that  all  men 
should  ever  become  of  one  sentiment  on  any  question. 
The  colonies  that  had  taken  risks  in  the  war,  and  were  now 
willing  to  put  all  to  hazard,  should  not  be  held  back  by  two 
colonies  which  had  not  suffered,  and  whose  policy  seemed  to 
be  to  keep  in  the  rear  of  the  Confederacy.  If  these  should 
secede,  this  would  not  be  so  dangerous  as  some  apprehended. 
The  Dutch  Revolution,  which  was  begun  by  only  three  of 
the  states  of  Holland,  succeeded. 

xThe  speech  of  Lee  is  found  in  full  in  Great  Debates  in  American 
History,  vol.  i.,  p.  197. 


1776]  Independence  149 

A  declaration  of  independence  alone  can  give  a  diplomatic 
basis  for  foreign  nations  to  form  an  alliance  with  us,  or 
even  to  receive  our  ambassadors,  permit  our  vessels  entry 
into  their  ports,  or  accept  the  adjudication  of  our  admiralty 
courts  in  prize  cases.  [That  is,  as  a  revolted  province, 
America  could  not  be  recognized  in  international  law  as  a 
belligerent.}  Though  France  and  Spain  may  be  jealous  of 
our  rising  power,  they  must  see  that  America  alone  will  be 
weaker  than  with  the  power  of  Great  Britain  behind  it. 
Should  they  refuse  to  prevent  this  coalition  by  an  alliance 
with  us,  we  shall  still  be  where  we  are.  Declare  independ 
ence,  and  we  shall  know  where  we  stand. 

Our  military  campaign  looks  hopeful, T  and  so  it  is  wise  to 
propose  foreign  alliance  now,  as  the  campaign  may  prove 
unsuccessful.  It  is  not  true  that  France  cannot  aid  us  in 
the  present  campaign.  It  can  cut  off  supplies  from  England 
and  Ireland  on  which  British  armies  are  to  depend,  or 
threaten  the  British  West  Indies  with  the  fleet  it  has  now 
collected  in  those  waters.  Had  we  entered  into  alliance 
with  France  six  months  ago,  she  might  have  marched  into 
Germany  and  prevented  the  petty  princes  there  from  selling 
their  unhappy  subjects  to  subdue  us. 

It  will  be  time  to  settle  terms  of  alliance  when  we  have 
determined  on  alliance. 

The  needs  of  our  people  demand  opening  of  foreign  trade 
at  once.  They  want  money  for  taxes,  on  which  our  govern 
ments,  colonial  and  federal,  depend. 

1  In  October,  1775,  Sir  William  Howe  succeeded  Gage  as  commander 
of  the  British  troops  in  Boston,  Generals  Sir  Henry  Clinton  and 
John  Burgoyne  also  being  sent  from  England  with  reinforcements. 
General  Washington  compelled  the  evacuation  of  Boston  on  March 
17,  1776,  and  Howe  sailed  with  his  troops  and  a  large  number  of  loyalist 
citizens  to  Halifax,  Nova  Scotia.  The  British  generals  recommended 
to  the  British  government  to  shift  the  center  of  military  operations  to 
New  York  City.  This  was  agreed  upon,  and,  while  Congress  was 
deliberating  on  independence,  the  British  troops  were  sailing  to  New 
York  City,  which  Washington,  anticipating  the  movement,  had 
fortified. 


150  American  Debate  [1776 

At  the  end  of  the  debate  on  Lee's  resolution  on  June 
10,  the  resolution  was  adopted  in  committee  by  a 
bare  majority  of  the  colonies,  the  minority  being 
Pennsylvania  and  Maryland,  whose  delegates  were 
instructed  to  oppose  it,  and  New  York,  New  Jersey, 
Delaware,  and  South  Carolina,  whose  delegates  were 
without  instructions.  In  order  to  give  these  colonies 
time  to  instruct  their  delegates,  it  was  decided  to  post 
pone  final  decision  until  July  I,  but,  in  order  that  this 
might  occasion  as  little  delay  as  possible,  a  committee 
was  appointed  to  prepare  a  Declaration  of  Independence 
fuller  and  more  explicit  than  Lee's  resolution.  Lee,  as 
the  mover  of  the  resolution  passed  in  committee,  would 
according  to  custom  undoubtedly  have  been  made 
chairman  of  the  committee  had  he  not  been  called 
home  by  the  illness  of  his  wife,  and  probably  would 
have  been  delegated  to  draft  the  enlarged  declaration. 
The  committee  chosen  were  John  Adams  (Mass.), 
Dr.  Franklin  (Pa.),  Roger  Sherman  (Ct.),  Robert  R. 
Livingston  (N.  Y.),  and  Thomas  Jefferson  (Va.). 
Committees  were  also  appointed  to  prepare  a  plan  of 
confederation  and  the  terms  of  foreign  alliance. 

Sketch  of  Sherman.  In  this  distinguished  company 
Roger  Sherman  was  not  unworthy  to  stand  with  Frank 
lin  as  a  high  type  of  the  self-educated  American.  The 
son  of  a  poor  farmer,  he  left  school  at  an  early  age 
to  become  a  shoemaker's  apprentice.  He  studied  at 
the  bench,  however,  devoting  himself  particularly  to 
mathematics,  law,  and  political  history.  When  he  was 
nineteen,  his  father  died,  and  Roger  supported  the 
family  by  his  trade.  In  time  he  became  a  small  mer 
chant  at  New  Milford,  Ct.,  eking  out  his  earnings  by 
surveying  and  making  astronomical  calculations  for  a 
New  York  almanac.  In  1754  ne  was  admitted  to  the 


17761  Independence  151 

bar  and  soon  became  a  man  of  note  in  the  community, 
serving  in  the  Connecticut  Assembly  and  on  the  bench 
of  the  county  Court  of  Common  Pleas.  In  1761  he 
removed  to  New  Haven,  where  he  received  the  same 
court  appointment,  and  also  became  treasurer  of  Yale 
College,  which  institution  recognized  his  attainments 
by  endowing  him  in  1765  with  the  master's  degree.  In 
1766  he  was  appointed  judge  of  the  Superior  Court,  and 
a  member  of  the  governor's  council.  In  1774  he  was 
elected  to  the  Continental  Congress. 

Though  not  eloquent,  he  won  the  deference  of  his 
fellow-members  by  his  great  knowledge  and  sound 
judgment.  Jefferson  called  him  "a  man  who  never  said 
a  foolish  thing,"  and  Nathaniel  Macon  declared  that 
"he  had  more  common  sense  than  any  man  I  have  ever 
known." 

It  was  through  the  absence  of  Lee  that  to  Thomas 
Jefferson,  as  a  Virginian,  fell  a  place  on  the  committee, 
he  being  chosen  from  the  delegation  of  his  province  for 
his  ability  as  a  writer,  his  forcible  resolutions  rejecting 
the  conciliatory  plan  of  Lord  North  evidently  suggesting 
the  appointment. 

Sketch  of  Jefferson.  On  his  graduation  from  the 
College  of  William  and  Mary,  Jefferson  studied  law 
under  George  Wythe,  then  a  young  lawyer  in  Williams- 
burg.  Wythe  particularly  trained  his  pupil  in  the 
works  of  Lord  Coke,  of  whom  Jefferson  afterward  said : 
"A  sounder  Whig  never  wrote,  nor  one  of  profounder 
learning  in  the  orthodox  doctrines  of  the  British  consti 
tution,  or  in  what  were  called  British  liberties."  Says 
Appleton's  Cyclopedia  of  American  Biography: 

"It  was  Jefferson's  settled  conviction  that  the  early  drill 
of  the  colonial  lawyers  in  '  Coke  upon  Lyttleton '  prepared 


152  American  Debate  [1776 

them  for  the  part  they  took  in  resisting  the  unconstitutional 
acts  of  the  British  government.  Lawyers  formed  by  Coke, 
he  would  say,  were  all  good  Whigs;  but  from  the  time  that 
Blackstone  became  the  leading  text-book  'the  profession 
began  to  slide  into  Toryism.'  His  own  study  of  Coke  led 
him  to  extend  his  researches  into  the  origins  of  British  law, 
and  led  him  also  to  the  rejection  of  the  maxim  of  Sir 
Matthew  Hale,  that  Christianity  is  parcel  of  the  laws  of 
England.  His  youthful  treatise  on  this  complex  and  dif 
ficult  point  shows  us  at  once  the  minuteness  and  the  extent 
of  his  legal  studies." 

In  1767  Jefferson  was  admitted  to  the  bar,  and  during 
the  eight  years  following  he  secured  a  highly  remunera 
tive  practice  for  those  days.  At  his  suggestion  and  with 
the  aid  of  his  contributions,  was  made  the  compilation 
of  Virginia  laws  known  as  "Henning's  Statutes  at 
Large." 

In  1769  Jefferson  entered  the  House  of  Burgesses. 
In  this  session  he  introduced  four  resolutions  declaring 
against  taxation  of  the  colonies  by  a  Parliament  in 
which  they  were  not  represented,  and  recommending  a 
union  of  the  colonies  for  redress  of  their  grievances. 
He  also  advocated,  in  the  first  important  speech  of  his 
career,  the  motion  of  Richard  Bland  that  the  law  be 
repealed  whereby  freed  slaves  had  to  be  sent  out  of  the 
colony — a  motion  which  was  promptly  rejected,  and  for 
which  Mr.  Bland  was  denounced  as  an  enemy  of  his 
country. 

In  1772  Jefferson  married  Mrs.  Martha  Shelton,  a 
young  and  childless  widow,  and  settled  in  his  new  house 
at  Monticello.  The  next  year  her  father,  a  rich  lawyer, 
died,  leaving  her  40,000  acres  and  135  slaves.  The 
management  of  this  property,  as  well  as  of  his  own 
considerable  estate,  absorbed  Jefferson  for  two  years. 


1776]  Independence  153 

In  1774  he  entered  again  into  public  life;  his  acts  from 
this  year  to  1776  have  already  been  related.  For  his 
subsequent  career  the  reader  is  referred  to  the  following 
pages  and  the  encyclopedias. 

Jefferson  died  on  July  4,  1826,  fifty  years  to  the  day 
after  signing  the  greatest  work  of  his  pen,  the  Declara 
tion  of  Independence,  John  Adams  surviving  him  only 
a  few  hours.  His  other  written  work  of  importance  is 
Notes  on  Virginia  (1784),  published,  while  Jefferson 
was  at  the  French  court,  in  both  English  and  French, 
in  order  to  give  foreigners  information  concerning  the 
State  he  knew  and  loved  best  in  the  "land  of  liberty  and 
opportunity." 

The  biographers  of  Jefferson  agree  in  extolling  his 
preeminence  among  American  statesmen,  and,  indeed, 
among  all  exponents  of  democracy,  as  a  lawgiver,  while 
admitting  his  subordination  to  others  as  an  original 
writer,  and  his  great  inferiority  as  an  orator.  Says 
George  Tucker,  in  his  Life  of  Thomas  Jefferson  (1837) : 

"As  an  author  he  has  left  no  memorial  that  is  worthy  of 
his  genius;  for  the  public  papers  drawn  by  him  are  admired 
rather  for  the  patriotic  spirit  which  dictated  them  than  for 
the  intellectual  power  they  exhibited.  .  .  .  His  purpose 
was  only  to  make  a  judicious  and  felicitous  use  of  that  which 
everybody  knew  and  would  assent  to." 

Of  his  style  James  Schouler  says,  in  his  Thomas 
Jefferson  (1893): 

"Phrases  from  his  letters  and  public  documents,  sometimes 
fervent,  sometimes  humorous,  circulated  through  the  land 
like  silver  coin.  He  wrote  and  he  talked  with  warm  blood 
coursing  through  his  veins;  and,  though  the  shaft  might 
rankle  where  it  was  driven,  it  struck  the  mark.  Vigor, 
liveliness,  and  choice  felicity  of  expression  marked  his  style, 


154  American  Debate  [1776 

which  was  nevertheless  scholarly ;  and,  while  so  many  of  his 
age  modeled  their  style  upon  Addison  and  the  Spectator, 
sought  out  the  sonorous  and  balanced  their  periods  labor 
iously,  admitting  no  word  that  might  not  be  found  in 
Johnson's  dictionary,  he  preferred  rather  the  figurative,  and 
aimed  to  make  the  English  vocabulary  more  copious.  His 
style,  like  that  of  every  master,  was  an  image  of  himself  and 
adaptive  he  meant  it  to  be  to  the  current  American  age  and 
institutions." 

Of  Jefferson's  abilities  as  an  orator  William  Mathews 
says,  in  his  Oratory  and  Orators  (1878) : 

"There  is  no  doubt  that  Thomas  Jefferson  failed  as  a 
speaker  simply  for  lack  of  voice.  He  had  all  the  other 
qualifications;  but  his  voice  became  gutteral  and  inarticu 
late  in  moments  of  great  excitement,  and  the  consciousness 
of  his  infirmity  prevented  him  from  risking  his  reputation 
in  debate." 

Of  Jefferson's  influence  on  American  politics  Francis 
Newton  Thorpe  says,  in  his  Constitutional  History  of 
the  American  People  (1898) : 

"In  later  years  when  the  very  form  of  a  State  constitution 
became  a  party  question,  the  influence  of  Jefferson  largely 
dominated  American  thought.  He  stood  for  the  rights  of 
man  as  these  were  expressed  in  the  Declaration  of  Inde 
pendence,  or  were  read  into  it  by  party  interpretation. 
During  the  eighteenth  century  his  influence  fell  far  short  of 
what  it  became  after  the  party  he  was  instrumental  in 
organizing  obtained  possession  of  the  national  government. 
During  the  half  century  following  his  death,  when  in  one 
form  or  another  slavery  and  State  sovereignty  were  national 
issues,  and  the  extension  of  the  franchise  and  the  change 
from  property  to  persons  as  the  basis  of  representation  were 
State  issues,  Jefferson  was  idealized  as  the  political  philo- 


J776]  Independence  153 

sopher  and  reformer,  and  his  ideas,  as  interpreted  by  a 
powerful  party,  were  of  paramount  influence  in  many 
States." 

As  an  illustration  of  the  truth  of  Mr.  Thorpe's  last 
statement,  the  close  of  a  letter  of  Abraham  Lincoln  to  a 
Jefferson  Dinner  Committee  in  Boston,  April  6,  1859,  is 
significant : 

"The  principles  of  Jefferson  are  the  definitions  and  axioms 
of  free  society.  And  yet  they  are  denied  and  evaded,  with 
no  small  show  of  success.  One  dashingly  calls  them  '  glitter 
ing  generalities.'1  Another  bluntly  calls  them  'self-evident 
lies.'  And  others  insidiously  argue  that  they  apply  to 
'superior  races.'  These  expressions,  differing  in  form,  are 
identical  in  object  and  effect — the  supplanting  the  principles 
of  free  government,  and  restoring  those  of  classification, 
caste,  and  legitimacy.  They  would  delight  a  convocation  of 
crowned  heads  plotting  against  the  people.  They  are  the 
vanguard,  the  miners  and  sappers  of  returning  despotism. 
We  must  repulse  them,  or  they  will  subjugate  us.  This  is  a 
world  of  compensation;  and  he  who  would  be  no  slave 
must  consent  to  have  no  slave.  Those  who  deny  freedom  to 
others  deserve  it  not  for  themselves,  and,  under  a  just  God, 
cannot  long  retain  it.  All  honor  to  Jefferson — to  the  man 
who,  in  the  concrete  pressure  of  a  struggle  for  national 
independence  by  a  single  people,  had  the  coolness,  the  fore 
cast,  and  capacity  to  introduce  into  a  merely  revolutionary 
document  an  abstract  truth,  app  icable  to  all  men  and  all 
times,  and  so  to  embalm  it  there  that  to-day  and  in  all 
coming  days  it  shall  be  a  rebuke  and  stumbling-block  to  the 
very  harbingers  of  reappearing  tyranny  and  oppression." 

The  committee  on  the  Declaration  of  Independence 
naturally  chose  Jefferson,  as  Lee's  virtual  substitute,  to 

1  Rufus  Choate. 


156  American  Debate  [1776 

draft  the  immortal  document.  The  draft  was  approved 
in  committee,  with  changes  made  by  Adams  and 
Franklin,  and  then  presented  to  Congress  on  Friday, 
June  28,  when  it  was  read  and  ordered  to  He  on  the 
table. 

The  alterations  in  committee  were  immaterial.  As 
Daniel  Webster  said  in  his  memorial  oration  on  Adams 
and  Jefferson  (1826): 

"The  merit  of  this  paper  is  Mr.  Jefferson's.  .  .  .  None 
[of  the  changes]  altered  the  tone,  the  frame,  the  arrangement, 
or  the  general  character  of  the  instrument.  As  a  composi 
tion  the  Declaration  is  Mr.  Jefferson's.  ...  To  say  that 
he  did  excellently  well,  admirably  well,  would  be  inadequate 
and  halting  praise.  Let  us  rather  say  that  he  so  discharged 
the  duty  assigned  to  him  that  all  Americans  may  well 
rejoice  that  the  work  of  drawing  the  title-deed  of  their 
liberties  devolved  on  his  hands." 

Edward  Everett,  in  his  eulogy  of  Adams  and  Jefferson 
in  the  same  year,  said : 

"To  have  been  the  instrument  of  expressing,  in  one  brief, 
decisive  act,  the  concentrated  will  and  resolution  of  a 
whole  family  of  states,  of  unfolding,  in  one  all-important 
manifesto,  the  causes,  the  motives,  and  the  justification  of 
this  great  movement  in  human  affairs;  to  have  been  per 
mitted  to  give  the  impress  and  peculiarity  of  his  own  mind 
to  a  charter  of  public  right,  destined  ...  to  an  importance 
in  the  estimation  of  men  equal  to  anything  human  ever  .  .  . 
expressed  in  the  visible  signs  of  thought — this  is  the  glory 
of  Thomas  Jefferson." 

On  Monday,  July  I,  the  House  resolved  itself  into 
a  committee  of  the  whole  and  resumed  the  considera 
tion  of  the  original  Virginia  motion  presented  by  Lee.  A 
debate  ensued  in  which,  says  Jefferson,  John  Adams  was 


1776]  Independence  157 

a  "colossus"  in  support  of  the  resolution;  though  "not 
graceful,  not  elegant,  nor  always  fluent  in  his  public 
addresses,  yet  he  came  out  with  a  power,  both  of 
thought  and  expression,  that  moved  us  from  our  seats." 

Daniel  Webster,  in  his  memorial  oration  on  "Adams 
and  Jefferson"  (who  had  died  on  the  same  day,  July 
4,  1826,  the  fiftieth  anniversary  of  the  Declaration), 
which  he  delivered  in  Faneuil  Hall,  Boston,  on  August 
2,  1826,  following  the  precedent  of  Thucydides,  the 
Greek  historian,  reconstructed  the  speeches  of  the  de 
baters  in  order  to  present  the  scene  vividly  to  the 
audience  and  coming  generations.  In  this  he  used 
words  uttered  by  the  speakers  on  other  occasions  (see 
page  87). ' 

Lee's  resolution  was  carried  by  the  votes  of  nine 
colonies,  South  Carolina  and  Pennsylvania  voting  in 
the  negative,  the  vote  of  Delaware  being  divided,  and 
New  York,  though  in  favor,  abstaining  from  voting 
because  of  instructions  against  independence  passed 
in  the  colony  a  year  before. 

The  committee  then  reported  the  resolution  to  the 
House.  Edward  Rutledge  (S.  C.)  requested  a  postpone 
ment  of  the  decisive  vote  until  the  next  day,  stating  that 
he  believed  that  his  colleagues,  for  the  sake  of  unanimity, 
would  after  a  conference  vote  for  the  resolution. 

On  July  2,  the  resolution  was  adopted  by  twelve 
votes,  South  Carolina  fulfilling  Rutledge 's  anticipation, 
the  vote  of  Delaware  being  cast  in  the  affirmative  by 
the  arrival  of  a  favoring  delegate  post-haste  from  the 
colony,  and  Pennsylvania  having  accessions  also  to  her 

1  This  reconstruction  of  the  speech  is  found  in  Webster's  collected 
orations,  and  in  Great  Debates  in  American  History,  vol.  i.,  p.  193.  The 
"Supposed  Speech  of  John  Adams"  appears  in  most  collections  of 
American  eloquence. 


158  American  Debate  [1776 

delegation  which  changed  its  sentiment.1  On  July  9 
the  New  York  convention  instructed  the  delegates  in 
Congress  from  that  State  to  vote  for  the  resolution, 
making  it  unanimous. 

Debate  on  Jefferson's  Declaration.  Immediately 
on  the  passage  of  the  Virginia  resolution,  July  2, 
Congress  took  up  consideration  of  the  Declaration  of 
Independence  reported  by  the  committee.  After 
warm  debate  it  was  amended  by  the  House.  Says 
Jefferson : 

"The  pusillanimous  idea  that  we  had  friends  in  England 
worth  keeping  terms  with  haunted  the  minds  of  many.  For 
this  reason,  those  passages  which  conveyed  censures  of  the 
people  of  England  were  struck  out,  lest  they  should  give 
offense.  The  clause,  too,  reprobating  the  enslaving  of  the 
inhabitants  of  Africa  was  struck  out  in  complaisance  to 
South  Carolina  and  Georgia,  who  had  never  attempted  to 
restrain  the  importation  of  slaves,  and  who,  on  the  contrary, 
still  wished  to  continue  it.  Our  northern  brethren  also, 
I  believe,  felt  a  little  tender  under  those  censures;  for, 
though  the  people  had  very  few  slaves  themselves,  yet 
they  had  been  pretty  considerable  carriers  of  them  to 
others."2 

1  The  Second  of  July,  1776,  and  not  the  Fourth,  was  therefore  the 
real  date  of  the  birth  of  the  Republic. 

2  The  text  of  the  Declaration,  with  all  the  amendments  made  in  the 
committee  and  the  House  indicated,  is  found  in  Great  Debates  in  Ameri 
can  History,  vol.  i.,  p.  201.    The  passage  on  the  slave-trade  which  was 
stricken  out  was  the  last  indictment  against  King  George  and  the 
bitterest  in  feeling: 

"He  has  waged  cruel  war  against  liberty  itself,  violating  its  most 
sacred  rights  of  life  and  liberty  in  the  persons  of  a  distant  people  [Afri 
cans],  who  never  offended  him,  captivating  and  carrying  them  into 
slavery  in  another  hemisphere,  or  to  incur  miserable  death  in  their 
transportation  thither.  This  piratical  warfare,  the  opprobrium  of 
infidel  powers,  is  the  warfare  of  the  Christian  King  of  Great  Britain, 
determined  to  keep  open  a  market  where  MEN  should  be  bought  and 


1776]  Independence  159 

The  debate  continued  until  July  4,  at  the  close  of 
which  day  the  Declaration  was  adopted  by  the  House, 
and  signed  by  every  member  present,  except  John 
Dickinson  (Pa.)-1  John  Hancock,  one  of  the  patriots 
marked  for  attainder  by  the  British  government,  signed 
his  name  first  as  President  of  Congress  in  a  bold  hand, 
saying,  "There,  I  think  old  Mother  Britain  can  see 
that  without  her  spectacles."  On  this  occasion,  on 
someone  making  the  rather  banal  remark  that  the 
members  must  "hang  together,"  Franklin  wittily 
rejoined, ' l  Yes,  or  we  shall  all  hang  separately. ' '  Indeed 
it  was  the  thought  that  Congress  had  already  gone  too 
far  for  royal  forgiveness  that  chiefly  won  over  the 
hesitating  members  to  sign  the  Declaration. 

The  Declaration  was  published  in  the  Evening  Post 
of  Philadelphia  in  the  morning  of  July  8,  and  at  noon 
was  publicly  read  from  a  platform  in  the  State  House 
yard  by  John  Nixon,  a  member  of  the  Pennsylvania 
Committee  of  Safety.  At  the  close  the  bell  of  the  State 
House,  since  known  as  the  "Liberty  Bell,"  was  rung, 
and  the  people  dispersed  to  indulge  in  joyful  demon 
strations.  These  were  later  repeated  over  the  country 
on  report  of  the  action  of  Congress,  and  this  has  con 
tinued  to  be  the  mode  of  celebrating  the  event  on  its 


sold.  He  has  prostituted  his  negative  for  suppressing  every  legislative 
attempt  to  prohibit  or  restrain  this  execrable  commerce,  and,  that  this 
assemblage  of  horrors  might  want  no  fact  of  distinguished  dye,  he  is  now 
exciting  those  very  people  to  rise  in  arms  among  us,  and  to  purchase 
that  liberty  of  which  he  has  deprived  them  by  murdering  the  people 
upon  whom  he  also  obtruded  them;  thus  paying  off  former  crimes 
committed  against  the  liberties  of  one  people,  with  crimes  which  he 
urges  them  to  commit  against  the  lives  of  another." 

1  Dickinson  nevertheless  proved  his  patriotism  by  afterward  enlisting 
as  a  private  in  the  Continental  army,  in  which  he  rose  to  the  rank  of 
Brigadier-General. 


160  American  Debate  [1776 

anniversaries,  thus  fulfilling  the  desire  of  John  Adams, 
expressed  in  a  letter  to  a  friend  on  the  day  following  the 
Declaration,  that  the  date  ought  to  be  universally  and 
annually  commemorated  in  America,  "with  pomp  and 
parade  .  .  .  from  this  time  forward,  for  evermore." 
On  the  day  of  his  death,  hearing  the  noise  of  bells  and 
cannon,  Adams  asked  the  occasion.  On  being  reminded 
that  it  was  "Independence  Day,"  he  replied,  "In 
dependence  forever! " 

The  Declaration  was  directed  by  Congress  to  be 
engrossed,  and  on  August  2,  1776,  it  was  signed  by  all 
the  members  then  present,  some  of  whom  had  not  been 
members  on  July  4.  Copies  were  sent  to  all  the  States 
and  to  General  Washington  for  public  proclamation  to 
the  citizens  and  soldiers,  who  received  the  Declaration 
with  universal  acclaim.1 

On  the  day  before  the  engrossed  copy  was  signed 
Samuel  Adams  delivered  an  address  in  Philadelphia 
on  "American  Independence,"  the  only  speech  of  his 
which  has  been  preserved. 2 

In  the  peroration  he  said : 

"Our  union  is  now  complete;  our  constitution  composed, 
established,  and  approved.  You  are  now  the  guardians  of 
your  own  liberties.  We  may  justly  address  you,  as  the 
decemviri3  did  the  Romans,  and  say:  'Nothing  that  we 
propose  can  pass  into  a  law  without  your  consent.'  Be 
yourselves,  O  Americans,  the  authors  of  those  laws  on 
which  your  happiness  depends." 

1  The  original  engrossed  document  is  preserved  in  the  State  Depart 
ment  at  Washington,  D.  C. 

a  It  appears,  with  annotations,  in  American  Orations,  by  Johnston  and 
Woodburn,  vol.  i. 

3  The  decemviri  were  a  "committee  of  ten"  that  drew  up  the  Twelve 
Tables  of  Roman  law. 


CHAPTER  VII 

THE  ARTICLES  OF  CONFEDERATION 
1776-1781 

Dr.  Franklin's  Proposed  Articles  of  Confederation  [1775] — Plan  of  the 
Congressional  Committee  [1776] — Debate  on  Federal  Revenue: 
Samuel  Chase  [Md.],  John  Adams  [Mass.],  Benjamin  Harrison 
[Va.],  James  Wilson  [Pa.],  John  Witherspoon  [N.  J.]— Debate  on 
Representation  of  States  in  Congress:  Mr.  Chase,  Benjamin 
Franklin  [Pa.],  Dr.  Witherspoon,  Mr.  Adams,  Benjamin  Rush 
[Pa.],  Stephen  Hopkins  [R.  I.],  Mr.  Wilson— Sketches  of  Chase, 
Witherspoon,  Rush,  and  Hopkins — Maryland's  Protest  against 
State  Ownership  of  Western  Lands — States  Cede  these  to  United 
States — Articles  of  Confederation  Adopted. 

ON  July  21,  1775,  Dr.  Franklin  drew  up  Articles  of 
Confederation  which  were  not  formally  acted 
upon  by  Congress  since  the  delegates  were  not  then 
prepared  for  the  decisive  step  of  independence  which 
adoption  of  the  articles  would  declare.  The  following 
is  a  synopsis  of  the  plan : 

I.  A  league,  binding  on  the  present  generation  and  their 
posterity,  shall  be  formed  for  common  defense  and  security 
of  the  liberties  and  properties  of  the  colonies,  and  for  the 
mutual  welfare  of  the  people. 

II.  Each  colony  shall  retain  its  present  laws,  etc.,  and 
peculiar  jurisdiction. 

III.  Delegates  to  Congress  shall  be  chosen  annually, 
ii  161 


1 62  American  Debate  [1776- 

Sessions  of  Congress  shall  be  held  annually  in  each  colony 
and  by  rotation. 

IV.  Congress  alone  shall  determine  on  peace  and  war; 
send  and  receive  ambassadors ;  form  treaties ;  settle  disputes 
between  colonies;  organize  new  colonies;  make  ordinances 
for  the  general  welfare,  such  as  laws  for  general  commerce 
and   currency;   establish   Federal   garrisons;   regulate   the 
general  army  and  navy,  and  appoint  the  officers  of  the  same; 
appoint  civil  officers  of  the  Confederacy. 

V.  Federal  expense  shall  be  defrayed  by  quotas  of  funds 
contributed  by  each  colony  in  proportion  to  male  population 
between  ages  of  sixteen  and  sixty,  and  raised  by  taxation  in 
each  colony.    Census  shall  be  taken  triennially. 

VI.  Number  of  delegates  to  Congress  from  each  colony 
shall  be  based  on  such  proportion,  one  delegate  for  every 
five  thousand.     One  half  of  delegates  in  Congress,  proxies 
counted,  shall  form  a  quorum. 

VII.  An  executive  council  of  twelve  delegates  shall  be 
appointed,  in  first  appointment  to  be  divided  in  three  classes 
of  four  delegates  each,  class  I  serving  one  year,  class  2  two 
years,  and  class  3  three  years;  as  terms  expire,  vacancies 
shall  be  supplied  by  delegates  elected  for  three  years.    Two 
thirds  shall  constitute  quorum.    Council  shall  execute  acts 
of  Congress,  suggest  legislation,  fill  vacancies,  and  adminis 
ter  funds  appropriated  by  Congress. 

VIII.  No  colony  shall  war  with  Indians  without  consent 
of  Congress.    League  shall  be  formed  with  the  Six  Nations 
(Iroquois),  fixing  their  territory,  which  shall  not  be  en 
croached  upon  nor  purchased  by  any   colony,   Congress 
making  such  purchases  for  the  whole  country.     Congress 
shall  appoint  agents  to  live  among  Indians,  prevent  injus 
tice  in  trade,  and  supply  their  necessities. 

IX.  Amendments  to  the  Articles  of  Confederation  shall 
be  proposed  by  Congress  and  approved  by  a  majority  of  the 
colonies  in  their  assemblies. 

X.  The  other  British  colonies  in  the  continent  of  North 
America  shall  be  permitted  to  join  the  Confederacy. 


1781]        The  Articles  of  Confederation         163 

XI.  Articles  shall  be  ratified  by  the  colonies  in  their 
assemblies. 

XII.  The  Confederation  shall  be  dissolved,  and  the 
colonies  shall  return  separately  to  their  British  allegiance  on 
reconciliation  with  Great  Britain  upon  terms  already  pro 
posed  by  Congress  [see  page  87].    Otherwise  the  league  shall 
be  perpetual. 


Debate  on  Committee's  Plan.  As  Jefferson  has 
stated  in  his  minutes,  on  June  n,  1776,  Congress  ap 
pointed  a  committee  to  prepare  articles  of  confedera 
tion  between  the  thirteen  sovereign  States  to  be  called 
into  existence  by  the  anticipated  Declaration  of  In 
dependence  by  the  colonial  delegates  in  their  recognized 
Federal  assembly.  This  committee  was  naturally 
composed  of  one  delegate  from  each  colony.  The  most 
prominent  members  were  Samuel  Adams  (Mass.), 
Stephen  Hopkins  (R.  I.),  Roger  Sherman  (Ct.),  Robert 
R.  Livingston  (N.  Y.),  John  Dickinson  (Pa.),  and 
Edward  Rutledge  (S.  C.). 

The  committee,  as  is  apparent,  made  Dr.  Franklin's 
Articles  (the  manuscript  of  which  had  been  preserved, 
although  not  copied  in  the  Journal  of  Congress)  the 
basis  of  their  Plan  of  Confederation.  This  it  reported 
on  July  12,  1776.  The  first  features  discussed  were  the 
all-important  ones  of  Federal  revenue  and  representa 
tion  of  the  States  in  Congress.  These  were  debated 
from  July  30  until  August  I.  The  principal  speakers 
were  Samuel  Chase  (Md.),  John  Adams  (Mass.), 
Benjamin  Harrison  (Va.),  Dr.  John  Witherspoon  (N.  J.), 
James  Wilson  (Pa.),  Dr.  Benjamin  Rush  (Pa.),  Dr. 
Benjamin  Franklin  (Pa.),  and  Stephen  Hopkins  (R.  I.). 

Sketch  of  Chase.  Samuel  Chase  was  an  eminent 
lawyer,  and,  from  the  beginning  of  the  strife  with  Great 


164  American  Debate  [1776- 

Britain,  an  ardent  patriot.  During  the  Stamp  Act 
agitation  he  was  one  of  the  "  Sons  of  Liberty'*  who 
broke  into  the  public  offices,  destroyed  the  stamps,  and 
burned  the  collector  in  effigy,  writing  thereafter  to  the 
authorities  avowing  the  deed  and  glorying  in  it.  He 
was  a  member  of  Congress  from  1774  to  1778,  signing 
the  Declaration  of  Independence.  His  later  career, 
especially  his  impeachment,  due  to  his  partisan  temper, 
as  Associate- Justice  of  the  Supreme  Court,  will  be 
referred  to  in  following  pages. 

Sketch  of  Witherspoon.  John  Witherspoon,  a  Scotch 
Presbyterian  minister,  came  to  America  in  1768  to  take 
the  presidency  of  Nassau  Hall,  at  Princeton,  N.  J.,  a 
college  largely  devoted  to  the  training  of  ministers. 
He,  however,  made  it  distinguished  as  a  school  of 
patriotic  statesmanship,  introducing  numerous  subjects 
such  as  political  science  and  international  law,  and 
teaching  these  with  bold  application  to  the  justice  of 
the  colonial  cause,  being  accounted  "as  high  a  son  of 
liberty  as  any  man  in  America."  He  dedicated  a 
patriotic  sermon  to  John  Hancock,  which  procured  for 
Witherspoon  the  distinction  already  achieved  by  Han 
cock  of  being  denounced  in  Great  Britain  as  a  "rebel 
and  traitor." 

Without  a  known  exception  every  one  of  the  Prince 
ton  students  under  Witherspoon  became  an  ardent 
patriot — a  remarkable  fact  in  view  of  the  many  Tories 
and  peace  advocates  in  New  Jersey.  A  greater  number 
of  these  rose  to  distinction  as  statesmen  than  the  com 
bined  patriots  graduated  from  Harvard,  Yale,  and 
Columbia  (King's  College)  during  this  period,  and  only 
little  William  and  Mary,  with  its  students  drawn  largely 
from  Virginia,  could  vie  with  Nassau  Hall  in  the 
eminence  of  its  sons  who  established  the  constitutional 


1781]        The  Articles  of  Confederation         165 

government  of  the  nation  in  the  succeeding  genera 
tion.  Accordingly  Witherspoon  was  preeminently  the 
"  Teacher  of  the  Republic  "— although  to  George  Wythe 
of  William  and  Mary  may  be  reserved  the  title  of  its 
"Lawgiver."  James  Madison,  who,  as  we  shall  see, 
had  more  to  do  with  the  formulation  of  the  principles 
of  the  Constitution  than  any  other  man,  came  to 
Princeton  attracted  by  the  fame  of  Dr.  Witherspoon 's 
teaching. 

Dr.  Witherspoon  not  only  led  his  students,  but  all  the 
Scotch  and  Scotch- Irish  Presbyterians  of  the  country, 
bodily  into  the  Revolutionary  movement. 

Witherspoon  signed  the  Declaration  of  Independence, 
remarking  as  he  did  so,  "  Although  these  gray  hairs 
must  soon  descend  into  the  sepulchre,  I  would  infinitely 
rather  that  they  should  descend  thither  by  the  hand  of 
the  public  executioner,  than  [that  I  should]  desert  at 
this  crisis  the  sacred  cause  of  my  country." 

All  of  the  distinguished  lawyers  in  Congress  deferred 
to  Witherspoon  in  questions  of  constitutional  and 
international  law,  and  when  the  constitution  of  New 
Jersey  was  framed  his  fellows  on  the  committee  left  the 
work  largely  to  him.  He  was  active  in  Congress  in 
prosecuting  the  war,  being  a  member  of  the  board  of 
war  and  the  committee  of  finance,  in  which  latter 
capacity  his  ability  to  raise  funds  came  vigorously  into 
play  in  supplying  provisions  for  the  famishing  army. 
Indeed,  he  initiated  the  chief  financial  measures  of 
Congress,  such  as  the  issue  of  paper  currency,  and  the 
supply  of  the  army  by  commission. 

Sketch  of  Rush.  Dr.  Benjamin  Rush,  who  has 
already  been  mentioned  as  the  patron  of  Thomas  Paine, 
was,  next  to  Witherspoon,  the  most  influential  man  not 
a  lawyer  in  Congress.  A  graduate  of  Princeton  in  the 


1 66  American  Debate  [1776- 

arts  and  of  Edinburgh  in  medicine,  he  became  in  1769 
professor  of  chemistry  in  the  Philadelphia  medical 
college,  and,  by  his  writings  soon  after,  a  man  of  note 
throughout  the  colonies,  with  fame  extending  to  Europe. 
In  1771  he  published  various  essays  on  slavery,  tem 
perance,  and  health,  and  in  1774  delivered  before  the 
Philosophical  Society  an  address,  notable  in  the  annals 
of  medicine,  on  the  "Natural  History  of  Medicine 
among  the  Indians  of  North  America." 

Dr.  Rush  was  an  ardent  patriot,  exerting  a  wide 
influence  in  behalf  of  the  colonies  through  his  high 
standing  in  the  community.  He  was  chairman  of  the 
committee  in  the  Pennsylvania  conference  which  ad 
vised  independence,  and,  being  chosen  a  member  of 
Congress,  signed  the  Declaration  of  Independence. 
In  1777  he  was  appointed  physician-general  of  the 
army,  and  was  in  constant  attendance  on  the  sick  and 
wounded  soldiers  under  Washington  until  in  February, 
1778,  he  resigned  his  position  on  account  of  wrongs 
done  to  fhe  soldiers  in  the  matter  of  medical  stores. 
Though  without  private  means  he  refused  to  take  any 
compensation  for  his  services.  During  this  period  he 
wrote  four  open  letters  urging  a  revision  of  the  Arti 
cles  of  Confederation  in  order  to  adopt  the  bicameral 
system. 

The  interest  in  philanthropy,  science,  and  religion 
which  were  characteristic  of  Dr.  Rush  are  indicated  by 
the  facts  that  he  succeeded  Franklin  as  president  of  the 
Society  for  the  Abolition  of  Slavery,  and  was  a  founder 
of  the  American  Philosophical  Society  and  of  the 
Philadelphia  Bible  Society,  where  he  advocated  the 
use  of  the  Bible  as  a  text-book  in  the  public  schools. 
His  profession  was  a  passion  with  him.  His  only 
regret  at  the  thought  of  death  was  that  it  would  deprive 


1781]        The  Articles  of  Confederation         167 

him  of  that  "pleasure  which  to  me  has  no  equal  in 
human  pursuits;  I  mean,  that  which  I  derive  from 
studying,  teaching,  and  practicing  medicine."  Finan 
cial  reward  was  never  considered  by  him ;  his  last  words 
were  an  injunction  to  his  son  Richard:  "Be  indulgent 
to  the  poor." 

Sketch  of  Hopkins.  Stephen  Hopkins  was  one  of  the 
oldest  men  in  Congress  in  both  years  and  patriotic 
service.  Born  in  1707,  he  entered  the  Rhode  Island 
legislature  early  in  life,  becoming  its  Speaker  in  1741. 
In  1751  he  was  appointed  Chief -Justice,  and  in  1755 
Governor.  At  first  a  farmer  and  surveyor,  he  removed  to 
Providence  in  1742  and  shortly  afterwards  became  a 
merchant  and  shipbuilder.  He  was  a  member  of  the 
intercolonial  convention  that  formed  the  Albany  Plan 
of  Union  in  1854.  When  the  agitation  against  the 
Stamp  Act  broke  out,  he  wrote  an  able  pamphlet  in 
defense  of  the  American  cause,  and  drafted  instructions 
of  a  town  meeting  to  the  legislature  in  opposition  to  the 
Act.  The  resolutions  which  were  reported  by  the 
Assembly  were  much  the  same  as  those  of  Patrick 
Henry  in  the  Virginia  House  of  Burgesses.  In  1773  he 
emancipated  his  slaves,  and  in  1774  introduced  a  bill 
in  the  legislature  which  prohibited  importing  slaves 
into  the  colony. 

He  was  a  member  of  Congress  from  its  beginning,  and 
signed  the  Declaration  of  Independence  with  a  hand 
that  trembled  from  palsy,  but  not  from  fear.  Indeed, 
he  was  noted  for  his  powerful  advocacy  of  decisive 
measures.  Because  of  his  knowledge  of  shipping  he  was 
a  useful  member  of  the  naval  committee. 

Debate  on  Federal  Revenue.  The  proposal  of  the 
committee  on  Federal  revenue  was  that  the  contri 
butions  from  the  several  States  should  be  based  on 


168  American  Debate  [1776- 

population,  excluding  Indians  not  taxed,  as  determined 
by  a  triennial  census. 

Mr.  Chase  moved  to  amend  by  specifying  "white'* 
inhabitants. 


While  admitting  that  on  principle  taxation  should  be 
based  on  property  he  said  that  this  was  impracticable. 
The  value  of  property  in  every  State  could  not  be  equitably 
estimated.  The  number  of  inhabitants  was  a  tolerably  good 
standard,  and  ascertainable.  Negroes,  however,  were 
property,  and  should  not  be  included  in  this.  The  southern 
man  invested  in  slaves,  where  the  northern  man  invested 
in  horses  and  cattle.  Thus  the  committee's  proposal 
was  to  tax  southerners  according  to  population  and 
wealth,  and  northerners  according  to  population  alone. 
Negroes  were  no  more  members  of  the  State  than  cattle. 

MR.  ADAMS  replied  that  the  economic  difference  to  the 
State  between  free  and  slave  laborers  was  imaginary. 
It  is  a  sad  commentary  on  wages  paid  at  the  time — 
that  these  were  at  the  margin  of  subsistence — that  he 
asked:  "What  matters  it  whether  a  landlord  gave  his 
laborers  as  much  money  as  would  buy  them  the  neces 
sities  of  life,  or  supplied  them  with  these,  as  did  the  slave 
owner?"  The  laborers  added  as  much  to  the  wealth  of 
the  State,  and  increased  its  exports  in  one  case  as  in 
the  other.  The  condition  of  the  laboring  poor  in 
most  countries — that  of  fishermen  particularly  in  the 
northern  States — is  as  abject  as  that  of  the  slaves. 
How  does  the  southerner  procure  his  slaves?  Either 
by  importation  or  domestic  purchase.  In  the  former  case, 
he  adds  one  to  his  number  of  laborers  in  his  country, 
and  proportionately  to  its  wealth.  In  the  latter  it  is  an 
exchange  which  does  not  affect  the  wealth,  and  therefore 
should  not  change  the  tax.  The  southern  farmer  with  ten 
slaves  is  as  free  to  buy  as  many  cattle  as  the  northern  farmer 
with  ten  laborers. 


1781]        The  Articles  of  Confederation         169 

Mr.  Harrison  proposed  as  a  compromise  that  two 
slaves  should  be  counted  as  one  freeman. 

A  slave  did  not  produce  more  than  half  what  a  freeman 
did.  Indeed,  a  comparison  of  annual  wages,  £24  [$120]  in 
the  North  to  from  £8  to  £12  [$40  to  $60]  in  the  South, 
showed  that  he  produced  less  than  half. 

Mr.  Wilson  opposed  this  amendment. 

If  it  were  adopted  the  southern  States  would  have  all  the 
benefit  of  slaves,  and  the  northern  all  the  burden.  Slaves 
increased  the  profits  of  a  State,  and  at  the  same  time  added 
to  the  expense  of  defense,  which  is  to  borne  by  the  nation. 
The  South  was  under  no  compulsion  to  have  slaves;  dismiss 
them,  and  freemen  would  take  their  place.  It  was  our  duty 
to  discourage  importation  of  slaves,  but  the  amendment 
would  encourage  it  by  giving  the  importer  a  sort  of  jus 
trium  liberorum  [the  special  privileges  given  in  Roman  law 
to  the  man  with  three  children].  There  were  as  many 
cattle  in  the  South  as  in  the  North.  It  was  the  practice  in 
the  South  to  make  every  farmer  pay  a  poll-tax  on  his 
laborers,  white  or  black.  He  admitted  that  freemen 
produced  more  than  slaves,  but  asserted  that  they  also 
consumed  more,  leaving  no  greater  surplus  for  taxation. 
Again,  white  women  were  generally  exempted  from  labor 
but  black  women  not.  It  was  once  claimed  that  slavery  is 
necessary,  because  the  commodities  raised  by  slaves  would 
be  too  dear  if  raised  by  free  labor,  but  economists  now 
claim  that  slave  labor  is  the  dearer  measured  by  results. 

Dr.  Witherspoon  (probably  the  best  economist  in 
Congress,  since  he  had  introduced  the  study  of  political 
economy  at  Princeton,  and  was  teaching  it  there)  op 
posed  the  proposition  of  the  committee. 

The  value  of  houses  and  lands  was  the  true  barometer  of  a 
nation's  wealth,  and  was  ascertainable.  The  estimate  now 


170  American  Debate  [177*- 

proposed  was  imperfect  in  itself,  and  unequal  between  the 
States.  It  has  been  objected  that  negroes  eat  the  food  of 
freemen,  and  therefore  should  be  taxed;  horses  do  the  same, 
therefore,  to  be  logical,  we  should  tax  them. 

Dr.  Witherspoon's  suggestion  prevailed,  and  the 
article  was  finally  amended  in  accordance  with  it  (see 
Article  VIII.). 

Debate  on  Representation.  The  committee's  article 
relating  to  representation  was  then  taken  up.  It  read : 
"  In  determining  questions  each  colony  should  have  one 
vote." 

Mr.  Chase  observed  that  this  article  was  the  one 
most  likely  to  divide  the  House. 

Already  the  larger  colonies  had  threatened  not  to  con 
federate  if  their  population  did  not  give  them  proportionate 
weight  in  Congress,  and  the  smaller  colonies  had  demanded, 
as  a  condition  of  entering  the  federation,  recognition  of  their 
equality  as  sovereign  States  with  any  other  State.  To  avoid 
the  disasters  certain  to  follow  disunion — probably  civil 
war — mutual  sacrifices  should  be  made.  He  suggested  that 
the  smaller  States  be  secured  in  all  questions  concerning 
life  and  liberty,  and  the  greater  ones  in  all  respecting  prop 
erty,  and  therefore  he  proposed  that  in  the  votes  relating 
to  money  the  voice  of  each  State  should  be  proportioned  to 
population. 

DR.  FRANKLIN  thought  that  this  should  be  the  rule  on 
all  questions.  He  took  notice  that  the  Delaware  counties 
(still  under  the  same  State  government  as  Pennsylvania, 
but  recognized  as  a  separate  State  in  Congress  and  shortly 
to  have  a  State  government  of  their  own)  had  bound  up 
their  delegates  not  to  agree  to  such  a  rule.  This  was  an 
extraordinary  position — not  to  confederate  with  us  unless  we 
would  let  them  dispose  of  our  money.  Certainly  if  we  vote 
equally  we  ought  to  pay  equally.  Now  at  the  beginning  of  a 


1781]        The  Articles  of  Confederation         171 

new  order  of  things,  was  the  time  to  establish  this  just 
principle.  No  injustice  would  result.  At  the  time  of  union 
with  England,  Scotland  feared  that  it  would  be  at  a  dis 
advantage,  but  the  contrary  rather  had  proved  to  be  the 
case.  Jonah  had  swallowed  the  whale;  the  Scotch  had 
possession  of  the  government  and  gave  laws  to  England. 

Dr.  Witherspoon  opposed  any  alteration  of  the 
article. 

If  an  equal  vote  be  refused,  the  smaller  States  would 
become  vassals  to  the  larger,  and  history  shows  that  vassals 
of  free  states  are  the  most  enslaved.  He  instanced  the 
Spartan  helots  and  Roman  provinces.  Instances  of  success 
ful  cooperation  in  which  there  was  an  equality  of  member 
ship  regardless  of  wealth  and  importance  were  the  East 
India  Company,  where  votes  were  by  persons  and  not 
by  stock,  and  the  Belgic  confederacy.  In  questions  of  war 
the  smaller  States  were  as  much  interested  as  the  large, 
and,  indeed,  the  larger  ones,  with  their  greater  extent  of 
frontier,  were  more  likely  to  involve  the  country  in  war. 
Nothing  relating  to  individuals  would  come  before  Congress, 
so  why  should  there  be  representation  according  to  popula 
tion?  Replying  to  Dr.  Franklin  he  said  that  Scotland  had 
not  united  with  England  on  equal  terms.  Allowed  nearly  a 
thirteenth  of  representation,  they  were  to  pay  only  one 
fortieth  of  the  land  tax,  which  was  a  just  concession.1 
Concession  of  equal  representation  therefore  should  be  made 
to  the  small  States. 

1  These  statistics  were  evidently  taken  from  a  satirical  pamphlet 
published  anonymously  by  Jonathan  Swift  shortly  after  the  union, 
entitled  The  Public  Spirit  of  the  Whigs.  On  the  publication  of  this  the 
Scots  lords  in  London  went  in  a  body  to  Queen  Anne,  and  complained  of 
the  affront  put  on  them  and  their  nation.  The  Queen  thereupon  pro 
claimed  a  reward  of  £300  for  discovering  the  author  (see  Swift's  Works, 
vol.  iv.,  p.  97,  edited  by  Thomas  Roscoe,  American  edition  published 
by  P.  O'Shea,  New  York). 


172  American  Debate  [1776- 

John  Adams  advocated  voting  in  proportion  to 
numbers. 

If  Congress  was  to  represent  the  people  it  should  really  do 
so.  Reason  and  justice  were  not  sufficient  to  govern  the 
councils  of  men.  Interest  alone  did  this.  The  interests 
within  Congress  should  be  the  mathematical  representatives 
of  the  interests  without;  the  individuality  of  a  State  is  a 
figment — a  mere  sound.  Does  it  increase  the  State's  wealth 
or  numbers?  If  it  does,  it  should  pay  equally.  If  it  does 
not  weigh  in  material  interests  it  cannot  weigh  in  argument. 
A  has  £50,  B  £500,  C  £1000  in  a  partnership.  Is  it  just 
that  they  should  divide  equally  the  profits?  It  has  been 
said  we  are  individuals  bargaining  together.  The  question 
is  not  what  we  are  now,  but  what  we  ought  to  be  when  the 
bargain  is  made.  The  confederacy  is  to  make  us  one  indi 
vidual  only,  to  cast  us  like  separate  parcels  of  metal  into 
one  common  mass. x 

It  has  been  objected  "that  a  proportional  vote  will  en 
danger  the  smaller  States.  We  answer  that  an  equal  vote 
will  endanger  the  larger.  There  is  no  fear  of  consolidation 
of  the  larger  States  against  the  smaller.  Virginia,  Pennsyl 
vania,  and  Massachusetts  [then  including  Maine],  the  three 
greater  colonies,  are  widely  separated  in  distance  and 
interests,  and  will  have  no  reason  to  combine.  Rhode 
Island  would  more  naturally  combine  with  Massachusetts, 
Jersey,  Delaware,  and  Maryland  with  Pennsylvania. 

Dr.  Rush  argued  for  proportional  representation. 

The  decay  of  the  Dutch  Republic  proceeded  from  three 
causes:  (i)  the  unanimity  required  in  legislation;  (2)  the 
obligation  of  representatives  to  consult  their  constituents2; 
(3)  their  voting  by  provinces. 

1  A  point  in  the  discussion  of  the  Nature  of  the  Union  in  the  issues  of 
State  Rights  and  Secession. 

a  A  point  in  discussion  of  Direct  Legislation. 


1781]        The  Articles  of  Confederation         173 

British  liberty  is  also  sinking  from  disproportionate  rep 
resentation.  We  have  proportionate  representation  in  our 
State  legislatures,  to  preserve  our  rights.  Why  not  in 
Congress  for  the  same  reason?  An  ideal  Congress,  if  it  were 
practicable,  would  be  composed  of  the  whole  people,  who 
would  determine  questions  by  majority.  Why  should  not 
the  same  majority  rule  through  their  representatives? 
Voting  by  free  inhabitants  will  have  one  excellent  effect — 
to  discourage  slavery  and  encourage  increase  of  free  laborers. 

Mr.  Hopkins  supported  equal  representation  of  the 
States. 

Four  States  contained  more  than  half  the  population  of 
the  colonies  [New  York  being  the  fourth].  These  would 
govern  the  Confederacy  as  they  pleased  under  proportional 
representation.  History  affords  no  instances  of  confedera 
cies  voting  by  proportional  representation.  The  Germanic, 
the  Helvetic,  and  the  Belgic  confederacies  vote  by  states. 

Mr.  Wilson  advocated  proportional  representation. 

A  government  is  a  collection  of  the  wills  of  all  the  people, 
and  it  approaches  perfection  as  it  more  nearly  voices  this 
combined  will.  It  has  been  said  that  Congress  will  be 
concerned  with  States  and  not  individuals.  I  say  that  the 
objects  of  its  care  are  all  the  individuals  of  the  States — the 
people  as  one  large  state.  We  lay  aside  smaller  interests 
here.  If  annexing  the  name  of  State  gives  a  body  of  10,000 
men  equality  with  40,000,  there  must  be  magic  in  the  act 
— there  certainly  is  not  reason. 

The  gentleman  from  Rhode  Island  cites  the  German 
confederacy.  This  is  a  burlesque  on  government.  Their 
practice  on  any  point  should  be  sufficient  authority  and 
proof  that  it  is  wrong.  In  the  Belgic  confederacy  the 
interest  of  the  whole  is  constantly  sacrificed  to  that  of  the 
small  states. 


174  American  Debate  1*776- 

It  is  asked :  shall  nine  colonies  put  it  in  the  power  of  four 
to  govern  them  as  these  please?  I  invert  the  question: 
shall  two  million  of  people  put  it  in  the  power  of  one  million 
to  govern  them?  What  is  the  statement  that  the  smaller 
States  will  be  in  danger  from  the  greater  but  saying  that 
the  minority  will  be  in  danger  from  the  majority?  Is  there 
an  assembly  on  earth  where  this  danger  may  not  be  equally 
pretended  ?  By  proportional  representation  our  proceedings 
will  be  consentaneous  with  the  interests  of  the  majority,  and 
so  they  ought  to  be.  A  combination  of  Massachusetts, 
Pennsylvania,  and  Virginia  to  act  for  their  interests  in 
opposition  to  the  interests  of  other  States  is  inconceivable. 
I  defy  any  man  to  invent  a  case  of  this  kind. 

The  proposition  of  the  committee  for  equal  represen 
tation  of  States  in  Congress  was  adopted. 

The  Articles  of  Confederation  were  debated  off  and 
on  in  Congress  for  two  years.  On  November  17,  1777, 
they  were  put  in  final  form  by  Congress,  then  in  session 
at  York,  Pa.,  on  account  of  the  British  occupation  of 
Philadelphia,  and  were  submitted  to  the  legislatures 
of  the  thirteen  States  for  ratification.  With  the  plan  of 
union  Congress  sent  an  appeal  for  early  action  upon  it : 

"More  than  any  other  consideration  it  will  confound  our 
foreign  enemies,  defeat  the  flagitious  practices  of  the  dis 
affected,  strengthen  and  confirm  our  friends,  support  our 
public  credit,  restore  the  value  of  our  money,  enable  us  to 
maintain  our  fleets  and  armies,  and  add  weight  and  respect 
to  our  councils  at  home  and  to  our  treaties  abroad. 

"In  short,  this  salutary  measure  can  be  no  longer  deferred. 
It  seems  essential  to  our  very  existence  as  a  free  people." 

Controversy  over  Western  Lands.  The  Articles 
were  ratified  on  July  9,  1778,  by  eight  States,  but  it  was 
not  until  1781  that  the  last  State  gave  her  consent,  and 


1781]         The  Articles  of  Confederation         175 

the  Confederation  went  into  effect.  This  was  Maryland, 
who,  with  other  States  having  no  claims  by  charter  or 
otherwise  to  the  western  lands,  contended  that  these 
should  be  made  the  common  property  of  all  the  States. 
In  December,  1778,  the  delegates  from  Maryland  were 
instructed  by  the  State  Assembly  to  insist  on  this 
provision. 

"Is  it  possible,"  the  instructions  asked,  "that  those 
States  who  are  ambitiously  grasping  at  territories,  to  which 
in  our  judgment  they  have  not  the  least  shadow  of  exclusive 
right,  will  use  with  greater  moderation  the  increase  of 
wealth  and  power  derived  from  these  territories,  when 
acquired,  than  what  they  have  displayed  in  their  endeavors 
to  acquire  them?  We  think  not.  We  are  convinced  the 
same  spirit  which  hath  prompted  them  to  insist  on  a  claim 
so  extravagant,  so  repugnant  to  every  principle  of  justice, 
so  incompatible  with  the  general  welfare  of  all  the  States, 
will  urge  them  on  to  add  oppression  to  injustice." 

Maryland's  animus  was  particularly  directed  against 
her  n'eighbor  Virginia,  whose  claims  covered  the  larger 
part  of  the  present  Central  States.  The  instructions 
said  that: 

Virginia,  by  selling  cheaply  a  small  part  of  the  lands  in 
question,  would  have  a  vast  State  revenue,  and  so  could 
reduce  taxes  far  below  those  of  her  less  fortunate  neighbors, 
and  thereby  induce  the  people  of  these  States,  and  immi 
grants  that  would  otherwise  settle  there,  to  come  into  her 
dominion. 

The  instructions  claimed  that  the  western  lands, 
ceded  by  France  in  1763,  should  be  regarded  as  common 
property  of  all  the  States  if  wrested  from  Great  Britain 
by  the  united  efforts  of  these.  They  therefore  demanded 


176  American  Debate  [1776-1781] 

that  the  Articles  of  Confederation  give  Congress  power 
to  "parcel  the  territory  out  into  free,  convenient,  and 
independent  governments  in  such  manner  and  at  such 
times  as  the  wisdom  of  that  assembly  shall  direct.1 ' 

The  justice  of  this  contention  was  recognized  by  the 
States  with  claims  to  western  lands.  New  York  led  the 
way.  In  February,  1780,  the  Legislature  of  that  State, 
"to  manifest  the  regard"  of  the  people  of  New  York 
"for  their  sister  States, "  empowered  the  State's  delegates 
in  Congress  to  cede  such  part  of  New  York's  western 
territory  as  they  saw  fit  to  the  United  States.  Congress 
earnestly  recommended  other  States  with  western 
lands  to  follow  New  York's  generous  example,  and,  in 
order  to  induce  them  to  do  so,  on  October  10,  1780, 
declared  that  the  territory  so  ceded  should  be  disposed 
of  for  the  common  benefit  of  the  Union,  and  formed  in 
time  into  republican  States,  and  that  the  States  ceding 
such  lands  would  be  reimbursed  for  any  expenses  which 
had  been  incurred  in  acquiring  them.  In  compliance 
with  this  request,  Virginia,  on  January  2,  1781,  ceded 
to  the  United  States  all  her  claim  to  lands  northwest 
of  the  Ohio  River.  The  influence  of  her  Governor, 
Thomas  Jefferson,  was  largely  responsible  for  this. 

Thereupon  Maryland  instructed  her  delegates  in 
Congress  to  sign  the  Articles  of  Confederation,  which 
was  done  on  March  i,  1781.  On  the  following  day 
Congress  assembled  under  the  new  powers. r 

1  The  text  of  the  Articles  of  Confederation  is  given  in  most  books 
upon  the  Federal  Constitution.  It  is  found  in  Great  Debates  in  American 
History,  vol.  i.,  p.  247. 


CHAPTER  VIII 

THE  CONSTITUTION 

1787-1789 

Failure  of  the  Confederation — Weakness  in  Foreign  Relations  and 
Finance — Shays's  Rebellion — Conflicting  Opinions  thereon  by 
Jefferson  and  Washington — Madison  on  the  Failure  of  the  Con 
federation — Hamilton  on  Need  of  a  New  Government — The 
Annapolis  Convention — Jay  and  Washington  on  Need  of  a  Con 
stitutional  Convention — It  is  Called  by  Congress — Dr.  Rush's 
Proposals — Pelatiah  Webster's  Proposed  Constitution — Sketch  of 
Webster — The  Constitutional  Convention — Jefferson  Decries  Se 
crecy  of  Its  Proceedings — Records  of  the  Convention — Sketches 
of  Leading  Delegates  by  Delegate  William  Pierce  [Ga.] — Debates 
on  State  vs.  Popular  Representation  in  Congress — The  Randolph 
Plan— The  Pinckney  Plan— The  Committee's  Plan  (Virginia  Plan) 
—The  Paterson  (Jersey)  Plan — Arguments  in  Favor  of  the  Virginia 
Plan:  by  James  Wilson  [Pa.],  Charles  Cotesworth  Pinckney  [S.  C.], 
Edmund  Randolph  [Va.],  James  Madison  [Va.] — In  Favor  of  the 
Jersey  Plan:  by  William  Paterson  [N.  J.] — Plan  of  Alexander  Ham 
ilton  [N.  Y.] — Jersey  Plan  Rejected — Debate  on  Popular  Repre 
sentation  in  the  Senate:  in  Favor,  George  Mason  [Va.],  Mr.  Wilson, 
Charles  Pinckney  [S.  C.];  Opposed,  William  Samuel  Johnson  [Ct.], 
Oliver  Ellsworth  [Ct.] — Debate  on  Length  of  Term  for  Senators: 
In  Favor  of  a  Long  Term,  George  Read  [Del.];  Mr.  Madison,  Mr. 
Wilson ;  In  Favor  of  a  Short  Term  at  the  Beginning,  Elbridge  Gerry 
[Mass.] — Present  Term  Adopted — Debate  on  the  Virginia  Plan: 
in  Favor,  Mr. Madison,  Mr.  Wilson,  Mr.  Hamilton;  Opposed,  Luther 
Martin  [Md.],  John  Lansing,  Jr.  [N.  Y.],  Mr.  Ellsworth,  Roger 
Sherman  [Ct.] — Suggestions  of  Benj.  Franklin  [Pa.],  Rufus  King 
[Mass.],  Gouverneur  Morris  [Pa.] — Plans  Referred  to  Committee 
—State  Rights  View  of  Committeeman  Robert  Yates  [N.  Y.]— 
Dr.  Franklin's  Compromise  Proposal  Accepted — Report  of  Com- 
xa  177 


178  American  Debate  [1787- 

mittee — It  is  Opposed  by  James  Madison  [Va.] — Yates  and  Lansing 
Leave  Convention — Report  Adopted — Subsequent  Proceedings  of 
Convention — Ratification  of  Constitution — Essays  in  its  Favor: 
Letters  of  Fabius  by  John  Dickinson  [Pa.];  Federalist  Papers  by 
Hamilton,  Madison,  and  John  Jay — Madison  Quotes  Hamilton 
in  Federalist  against  Hamilton  in  Defense  of  President  Washington's 
Proclamation  of  Neutrality  (1793) — Speech  by  Fisher  Ames 
[Mass.]  in  Favor  of  Ratification — Sketch  of  Ames — Debate  on 
Ratification  by  Virginia:  in  Favor,  John  Marshall,  George  Wythe, 
James  Madison;  Opposed,  Patrick  Henry,  William  Grayson — 
Sketches  of  Marshall  and  Grayson — Debate  on  Ratification  by 
New  York:  in  Favor,  Alexander  Hamilton;  Opposed,  Melanct[h]on 
Smith — Sketch  of  Smith — Constitution  Ratified  and  New  Gov 
ernment  Formed. 


CONGRESS  under  the  Articles  of  Confederation 
^^  had  virtually  only  advisory  powers,  and  the 
States,  possessing  the  real  sovereignty,  paid  little  heed 
to  recommendations  of  the  Federal  legislature.  Thus, 
when  Great  Britain  had  refused  to  form  a  commercial 
treaty  with  the  United  States  on  the  conclusion  of 
peace,  and  continued  its  "orders  in  council"  excluding 
American  ships  from  the  British  West  Indies,  and 
Congress  asked  the  States,  on  April  30,  1784,  to  vest  it 
with  retaliatory  power  to  prohibit  importations  from 
any  nation  with  which  a  commercial  treaty  had  not 
been  contracted,  the  request  was  not  heeded.  Nor 
was  Congress  able  to  make  the  States  conform  to  the 
terms  of  the  treaty  of  peace  especially  in  regard  to 
amnesty  toward  the  loyalists. 

Failure  of  Federal  Finance.  In  domestic  matters, 
especially  financial,  the  helplessness  of  Congress,  while 
it  could  not  be  more  abject  or  humiliating  than  in 
foreign  affairs,  was  even  more  disastrous.  The  Revolu 
tion  had  left  the  country  forty  million  dollars  in  debt — 
eight  million  dollars  to  France  and  Holland,  and  thirty- 
two  million  dollars  to  American  citizens  who  had 


1789]  The  Constitution  179 

patriotically  come  to  the  aid  of  their  country  in  its  need 
on  the  repeated  and  solemn  assurances  of  Congress 
that  the  interest  on  the  debt  would  be  promptly  met, 
and  the  principal  be  repaid  within  a  reasonable  time 
after  the  cessation  of  hostilities.  Even  the  first  of 
these  promises  could  not  be  complied  with  except  by 
borrowing  more  money  to  pay  the  annual  interest, 
amounting  to  $2,415,976,  of  the  old  loans. 

On  April  1 8,  1783,  Congress  asked  the  States  to  vest 
it  with  power  to  levy  specific  duties  on  spirits,  tea, 
sugar,  etc.,  and  an  ad  valorem  duty  of  five  per  cent,  on 
all  other  imports,  the  duties  to  be  applied  solely  to 
payment  of  the  national  debt,  and  to  continue  for 
twenty-five  years.  The  States  were  at  the  same  time 
required  to  arrange  systems  of  revenue  whereby  they 
could  raise  within  twenty-five  years  their  annual  shares 
of  the  national  debt,  totalling  $1,500,000,  proportioned 
among  them  according  to  Article  VIII  of  the  Confedera 
tion.  However,  since  the  basis  of  this  proportion,  the 
valuation  of  houses  and  lands,  had  never  been  com 
pleted,  owing  to  the  great  difficulty  of  estimation,1 
Congress  proposed  to  the  States  that  the  article  should 
be  amended,  making  the  standard  the  number  of  free 
citizens  and  those  bound  to  service  for  a  term  of  years, 
and  three  fifths  of  all  other  persons  (i.  e.,  slaves). 

This  plan  of  national  revenue  was  not  to  take  effect 
until  adopted  by  all  the  States,  and  was  made  irre 
vocable  except  by  consent  of  a  majority  of  Congress. 

General  Washington,  on  retiring  from  his  command, 
lent  his  great  influence  to  the  proposal  of  Congress  by 
writing  a  circular  letter  in  its  favor  to  the  governors  of 

1  A  "Single-Taxer"  would  urge  that,  had  land  value  irrespective  of 
improvements  been  taken  as  a  standard,  such  difficulty  would  not  have 


arisen. 


i8o  American  Debate  [1787- 

all  the  States,  but  to  none  effect.  Now  that  the  cohesive 
fear  of  a  common  enemy  was  removed,  the  bond  of 
Federal  Union  relaxed,  and  self-interest  reasserted  itself. 
The  States  positively  refused  to  bind  themselves  for 
twenty-five  years  to  contribute  directly  their  shares 
of  the  national  debt,  and  Congress  was  obliged  to  con 
fine  its  request  to  the  grant  of  power  to  the  Federal 
Government  to  lay  import  duties.  To  this  the  import 
ing  States,  with  tariffs  of  their  own,  strenuously  ob 
jected.  However,  by  1786  all  the  States  but  New  York 
had  complied  with  this  proposition  of  Congress. 

Meanwhile  Congress  could  raise  no  Federal  revenue 
except  by  requisition  on  the  States.  Six  million  dollars 
were  called  for  between  1782  and  1786  to  pay  interest  on 
the  domestic  debt,  yet  only  one  million  of  this  was 
contributed.  The  value  of  this  debt  accordingly 
subsided  to  one  tenth  of  its  face.  The  interest  on  the 
foreign  debt  was  paid  out  of  the  principal  of  new. 
foreign  loans.  Naturally  the  credit  of  the  United 
States  abroad  tended  to  sink  towards  the  low  condition 
of  that  at  home,  impairing  the  formation  of  commercial 
treaties. 

The  financial  condition  of  the  separate  States  was 
even  worse  than  that  of  the  Confederation.  Some  of 
them  had  issued  paper  currency  to  such  an  extent  that 
they  became  virtually  bankrupt. 

Shays's  Rebellion.  In  1786  the  farmers  of  western 
Massachusetts,  under  the  leadership  of  Daniel  Shays, 
openly  opposed  the  execution  of  the  process  for  debt, 
and  Congress  was  so  powerless  openly  to  aid  the  State 
government  in  suppressing  the  insurrection  that  it  had 
to  resort  to  the  subterfuge  of  raising  forces  ostensibly 
to  protect  the  frontier  against  the  Indians,  enlisting 
the  troops  principally  in  New  England.  However, 


1789]  The  Constitution  181 

Massachusetts,  with  four  thousand  militia  under  com 
mand  of  General  Benjamin  Lincoln,  was  able  to  put 
down  the  rising  without  Federal  aid.  So  sympathetic 
were  the  people  with  the  insurgents  that  these  were 
pardoned  by  the  State  legislature.  Even  Thomas 
Jefferson  viewed  the  insurrection  with  leniency,  saying 
(at  various  times) : 

"The  commotions  offer  nothing  threatening;  they  are  a 
proof  that  the  people  have  liberty  enough,  and  I  could  not 
wish  them  less  than  they  have.  ...  To  punish  these 
errors  too  severely  would  be  to  suppress  the  only  safeguard 
of  the  public  liberty.  ...  A  little  rebellion  now  and 
then  is  a  good  thing ....  It  is  a  medicine  necessary  for 
the  sound  health  of  government.  .  .  .  God  forbid  that 
we  should  ever  be  twenty  years  without  such  a  rebellion. 
.  .  .  What  signify  a  few  lives  lost?  .  .  .  The  tree 
of  liberty  must  be  refreshed  from  time  to  time  with  the 
blood  of  patriots  and  tyrants.  It  is  its  natural  manure."1 

In  a  similar  strain  he  alined  himself  with  the  philo 
sophical  anarchists. 

"The  basis  of  our  governments  being  the  opinion  of  the 
people,  the  very  first  object  should  be  to  keep  that  right. 
.  .  .  Were  it  left  to  me  to  decide  whether  we  should 
have  a  government  without  newspapers,  or  newspapers 
without  a  government,  I  should  not  hesitate  a  moment  to 
prefer  the  latter.  ...  I  am  convinced  that  those 
societies  (such  as  the  Indian  tribes)  which  live  without 
government  enjoy  in  their  general  mass  an  infinitely  greater 

1  Bertrand  Barere,  called  the  "  Anacreon  of  the  Guillotine  "  on  account 
of  the  flowery  language  in  which  he  supported  the  bloody  measures  of  the 
Reign  of  Terror,  declared  in  the  French  National  Convention  in  1792: 
"The  tree  of  liberty  grows  only  when  watered  by  the  blood  of  tyrants" 
— an  evident  echo  of  Jefferson's  epigram,  though  it  is  commonly  regarded 
in  European  literature  as  an  original  figure. 


182  American  Debate  1*787- 

degree  of  happiness  than  those  who  live  under  European 
governments.  Among  the  former,  public  opinion  is  in  the 
place  of  law,  and  restraining  morals  as  powerfully  as  laws 
ever  did  anywhere." 

Washington,  however,  though  a  soldier,  took  quite 
an  opposite  view  of  Shays's  Rebellion  from  that  of 
Jefferson,  the  civilian.  He  wrote  to  one  of  his  cor 
respondents  : 

"What,  gracious  God,  is  man!  that  there  should  be  such 
inconsistency  and  perfidiousness  in  his  conduct.  It  is  but 
the  other  day  that  we  were  shedding  our  blood  to  obtain 
the  constitutions  under  which  we  live — constitutions  of  our 
own  choice  and  making.  And  now  we  are  unsheathing  the 
sword  to  overturn  them!" 

James  Madison,  who,  with  Alexander  Hamilton,  had 
been  most  influential  in  formulating  the  revenue  pro 
posal  of  Congress  to  the  States,  returned  to  Congress 
in  February,  1787,  after  service  in  the  Virginia  As 
sembly  where  he  had  secured  the  passage  of  Jefferson's 
statute  of  religious  freedom  [see  page  140],  A  letter 
which  he  wrote  at  this  time  to  Edmund  Randolph 
contains  a  summary  of  the  deplorable  situation  of  the 
Federal  Government. 

"Our  situation  is  becoming  every  day  more  and  more 
critical.  No  money  comes  into  the  Federal  treasury;  no 
respect  is  paid  to  the  Federal  authority;  and  people  of 
reflection  unanimously  agree  that  the  existing  Confederacy 
is  tottering  to  its  foundation.  Many  individuals  of  weight, 
particularly  in  the  eastern  district,  are  suspected  of  leaning 
toward  monarchy.1  Other  individuals  predicted  a  parti- 

1  Madison  does  not  necessarily  refer  to  a  monarchy  in  form,  but  one 
in  essential  nature,  that  is,  a  consolidation  of  government  in  which  the 


1789]  The  Constitution  183 

tion  of  the  States  into  two  or  more  confederacies.  It  is 
pretty  certain  that,  if  some  radical  amendment  of  the  single 
one  cannot  be  devised  and  introduced,  one  or  the  other  of 
these  revolutions,  the  latter,  no  doubt,  will  take  place." 

Long  before  this,  however,  agitation  had  begun  for 
the  formation  of  a  "more  perfect  union."  In  1780 
Alexander  Hamilton,  then  only  twenty-three  years  of 
age,  proposed  in  a  letter  to  James  Duane  that  a  conven 
tion  of  the  States  should  be  held  to  revise  the  Articles 
of  Confederation.  Largely  by  his  influence  the  legis 
lature  of  New  York,  in  1782,  recommended  such  a 
convention.  It  is  probably  the  greatest  act  of  states 
manship  in  his  career  that  General  Washington  early 
and  earnestly  endorsed  the  movement.  In  a  letter  to 
Governor  Benjamin  Harrison,  of  Virginia,  in  January, 
1784,'  he  wrote  that  the  United  States  was  despised  by 
the  powers  of  Europe,  chiefly  Great  Britain. 

"They  know  that  individual  [State]  opposition  to  their 
measures  is  futile,  and  boast  that  we  are  not  sufficiently 
united  as  a  nation  to  give  a  general  one !  Is  not  the  indig 
nity  alone  of  this  declaration  .  .  .  sufficient  to  stimulate 
us  to  vest  more  extensive  and  adequate  powers  in  the 
sovereigns  of  these  United  States?" 

The  Annapolis  Convention.  Virginia  took  the  first 
step  toward  a  practical  realization  of  the  proposal  of 
its  greatest  son,  being  stirred  into  action  by  conflict 
of  its  laws  with  those  of  Maryland  in  regard  to  traffic 

States  would  be  totally  deprived  of  sovereign  powers,  these  being  concen 
trated  in  a  national  executive  supported  by  a  national  legislature  largely 
representative  of  aristocratic  interests.  Jefferson  coined  the  term 
"monocrat"  for  all  who  held  such  views,  aiming  it  particularly  at 
Hamilton. 

1  See  North  American  Review  for  October,  1827,  p.  259. 


1 84  American  Debate  [1787- 

on  the  waters  intervening  between  the  States.  In 
January,  1786,  the  Virginia  legislature  appointed  com 
missioners  to  meet  with  others  who  might  be  chosen 
by  sister  States  to  take  into  consideration  the  subject 
of  interstate  commerce,  and  to  formulate  an  act  which, 
ratified  by  the  several  States  of  the  Union,  would  enable 
Congress  to  pass  a  uniform  law  on  the  subject.  It  was 
later  agreed  that  such  a  convention  should  meet  at 
Annapolis,  Md.,  in  September  of  the  same  year. 

Before  it  was  held,  John  Jay  in  March,  1786,  wrote 
to  General  Washington,  advising  that  the  convention 
ought  to  consider  more  objects — indeed,  that  a  general 
convention  for  revising  entirely  the  Articles  of  Confed 
eration  would  be  expedient,  and  was  in  contemplation 
(evidently  by  Alexander  Hamilton,  and  other  friends 
and  correspondents  of  Jay).  In  a  letter  in  June  to 
Washington,  he  intimated  that  the  men  of  property 
in  the  country,  disgusted  and  alarmed  at  the  uncertainty 
and  fluctuation  of  public  affairs,  were  ready  for  almost 
any  change  that  might  promise  them  quiet  and  security. 

In  reply  to  these  communications  Washington  wrote 
endorsing  the  idea  of  a  national  government  radically 
different  from  the  existing  one  in  possessing  mandatory 
instead  of  merely  advisory  powers. 

"We  have,  probably,  had  too  good  an  opinion  of  human 
nature  in  forming  our  Confederation.  Experience  has 
taught  us  that  men  will  not  adopt  and  carry  into  execution 
measures  the  best  calculated  for  their  own  good  without  the 
intervention  of  coercive  power. 

"I  do  not  conceive  we  can  long  exist  as  a  nation  without 
lodging  somewhere  a  power  which  will  pervade  the  whole 
Union  in  as  energetic  a  manner  as  the  authority  of  the  State 
governments  extend  over  the  several  States.  To  be  fearful 
of  investing  Congress,  constituted  as  that  body  is,  with 


1789]  The  Constitution  185 

ample  authority  for  national  purposes,  appears  to  me  the 
climax  of  popular  absurdity  and  madness.  Could  Congress 
exert  this  for  the  detriment  of  the  people  without  injuring 
themselves  in  an  equal  or  greater  proportion  ?  Are  not  their 
interests  inseparably  connected  with  those  of  their  con 
stituents  ?  [Here  he  spoke  of  the  necessity  of  representatives 
meeting  popular  approval  in  order  to  be  reelected.] 

"Many  are  of  opinion  that  Congress  have  too  frequently 
made  use  of  the  suppliant  humble  tone  of  requisition  in  their 
applications  to  the  States,  when  they  had  a  right  to  assert 
their  imperial  dignity  and  command  obedience.  .  .  . 
Requisitions  are  actually  little  better  than  a  jest  and  a  bye- 
word  throughout  the  land.  If  you  tell  the  legislatures  they 
have  violated  the  treaty  of  peace,  and  invaded  the  preroga 
tives  of  the  Confederacy,  they  will  laugh  in  your  face." 

Accordingly  Washington  agreed  with  Jay  that  it  was 
to  be  feared  that  "the  better  kind  of  people"  were 
prepared  for  "any  revolution  whatever, "  and  said  that 
he  had  heard  some  were  speaking  of  a  monarchical 
government  "without  horror." 

"From  thinking  proceeds  speaking;  thence  to  acting  is 
often  but  a  single  step.  But  how  irrevocable  and  tremen 
dous  !  What  a  triumph  for  our  enemies  to  verify  their  pre 
dictions  !  .  .  .  Would  to  God  that  wise  measures  may  be 
taken  in  time  to  avert  the  consequences  we  have  but  too 
much  reason  to  apprehend." 

Virginia,  Delaware,  Pennsylvania,  New  Jersey,  and 
New  York  alone  sent  delegates  to  the  Annapolis  Con 
vention.  In  view  of  this  partial  representation  the 
convention  satisfied  itself  by  drawing  up  an  address 
to  Congress  and  the  State  governments  enumerating 
the  defects  of  the  Confederation  and  recommending 
a  convention  of  all  the  States  to  meet  in  Philadelphia 


1 86  American  Debate  [1787- 

in  May,  1787,  to  devise  a  more  adequate  Federal  Con 
stitution. 

In  February,  1787,  Congress  recommended  the  pro 
ject  to  the  States,  and,  in  consequence,  alt  the  States 
but  Rhode  Island  appointed  delegates  to  the  conven 
tion. 

Dr.  Rush's  Plan  of  Government.  Shortly  before  the 
meeting  of  the  convention  Dr.  Benjamin  Rush  delivered 
a  speech  in  Philadelphia,  to  which  has  not  been  accorded 
the  importance  it  deserves  in  American  political  history. 
It  is  a  strong  and  admirable  presentation  of  what  was 
shortly  to  be  denominated  the  "Federalist"  as  opposed 
to  the  "Anti-Federalist"  view  of  government. 

In  this  address  he  declared  that  "the  Revolution  is 
not  over,"  only  "the  first  act  in  the  great  drama  is 
closed;  it  remains  yet  to  establish  and  perfect  our  new 
forms  of  government,  and  to  prepare  the  principles, 
morals,  and  manners  of  our  citizens"  for  these  forms 
when  so  perfected. 

The  Confederation,  he  said,  was  formed  when,  though 
we  understood  the  principles  of  liberty,  we  were  ignorant 
of  the  forms  of  republican  government  calculated  to 
enforce  these.  There  was  war  in  the  land,  causing  us 
to  detest  our  enemies,  and  to  refuse,  therefore,  to  copy 
those  excellent  forms  in  the  British  government  which 
"have  made  it  the  admiration  and  envy  of  the  world." 

"The  temple  of  tyranny  has  two  doors;  we  bolted  one 
of  them  by  proper  restraints,  but  we  left  the  other  open  by 
neglecting  to  guard  against  the  effects  of  our  own  ignorance 
and  licentiousness." 

He  desired  that  the  convention  recommend  that  the 
States  surrender  to  Congress  their  power  of  emitting 
money,  thus  facilitating  interstate  commerce,  and 


1789]  The  Constitution  187 

affording  them,  because  of  the  establishment  of  a 
strong  common  treasury  from  which  to  borrow  in  case 
of  need,  a  better  system  of  finance  for  State  require 
ments  than  at  present. 

He  advocated  the  system  of  national  legislation  in  the 
form  that  was  virtually  adopted,  an  upper  house  with 
equal  representation  of  the  States,  and  a  lower  house 
with  a  varying  number  of  State  representatives. 

He  advised  that  a  President  be  appointed  by  these 
houses,  with  a  privy  council  (cabinet),  and  appointive 
power  independent  of  Congress,  to  act  as  the  Federal 
Executive. 

"  The  custom  of  turning  men  out  of  power  or  office  as  soon 
as  they  are  qualified  for  it  has  been  found  as  absurd  in 
practice"  as  in  the  case  of  removing  a  tried  and  approved 
general,  a  physician,  or  even  a  domestic — "for  the  sake  of 
increasing  the  number  of  able  generals,  skilful  physicians, 
and  faithful  servants !  .  .  .  Government  is  a  science,  and 
can  never  be  perfect  in  America  until  we  encourage  men  to 
devote  not  only  three  years,  but  their  whole  lives  to  it." 
Compulsory  retirement  from  office,  he  said,  was  the  cause 
of  men  of  ability  refusing  to  serve  in  the  government  of  the 
Confederation.  [This  was  a  notorious  fact,  the  grade  of 
ability  in  Congress  having  sunk  very  low.] 

"It  is  often  said  'that  the  sovereign  .  .  .  power  is 
seated  in  the  people.'  This  is  unhappily  expressed.  It 
should  be:  'all  power  is  derived  from  the  people' — they 
possess  it  only  on  the  days  of  election.  After  this  it  is  the 
property  of  their  rulers,  nor  can  they  exercise  or  resume  it, 
unless  it  is  abused.1  .  .  . 

"  The  people  of  America  have  mistaken  the  meaning  of  the 
word  'sovereignty';  hence  each  State  pretends  to  be  sover 
eign.  In  Europe  it  is  applied  only  to  those  States  which 
possess  the  power  of  making  war  and  peace,  cf  forming 

1 A  point  in  the  discussion  of  Direct  Government. 


1 88  American  Debate  [1787- 

treaties  and  the  like.     As  this  power  belongs  to  Congress, 
they  are  the  only  sovereign  power  in  the  United  States. 

"We  commit  a  similar  mistake  in  our  ideas  of  the  word 
'independent.'  No  individual  State,  as  such,  has  any 
claim  to  independence.  She  is  independent  only  in  a 
union  with  her  sister  States  in  Congress." 

Dr.  Rush  most  earnestly  advised  that  the  people 
be  educated  in  these  matters,  and  to  this  end  he  recom 
mended  that,  instead  of  building  a  " federal  town"  (a 
subject  already  broached,  and  to  which  as  a  citizen 
of  the  existing  capital  he  was  naturally  opposed),  a 
federal  university  should  be  established,  costing  only 
one  fourth  the  sum  estimated  for  creating  the  proposed 
capital.  In  this  university  were  to  be  taught  the 
sciences  of  politics  and  economics  (it  is  significant  of 
the  prevailing  ignorance  and  contempt  of  the  latter 
subject  that  he  had  to  define  it,  and  support  the  idea  by 
special  references  to  agriculture,  manufacture,  and  com 
merce).  In  connection  with  the  university,  a  corre 
spondent  was  recommended,  to  travel  abroad  and  report 
discoveries,  etc.,  in  agriculture  and  manufacture  (the 
germ  of  our  consular  system).  He  thought  that,  in 
time,  all  federal  offices  should  be  confined  to  graduates 
of  the  institution. 

With  a  curious  mixture  in  his  figure  of  speech  of 
prescience  and  perversion  of  the  future  application  of 
electricity,  Dr.  Rush  advised  the  extension  of  the 
federal  post-office: 

"This  is  the  true  non-electric  wire  of  government.  It  is 
the  only  means  of  conveying  heat  and  light  to  every  individ 
ual  in  the  federal  commonwealth."  Newspapers  should  be 
delivered  free  of  charge,  as  "not  only  the  vehicles  of  knowl 
edge  .  .  .  but  the  sentinels  of  the  liberties  of  the  country." 


1789!  The  Constitution  189 

Some  of  his  ideas  Dr.  Rush  undoubtedly  derived 
from  Pelatiah  Webster,  a  fellow  townsman,  whose 
Dissertation  on  the  Constitution,  published  in  1783,  had 
been  extensively  read  in  Philadelphia. 

Sketch  of  Webster.  Pelatiah  Webster,  a  native  of 
Connecticut,  was  for  some  years  after  his  graduation 
from  Yale  a  preacher.  In  1755  he  engaged  in  business 
in  Philadelphia,  where  he  accumulated  a  small  fortune, 
part  of  which  he  devoted  to  the  patriot  cause  during 
the  Revolution.  The  British  on  their  occupation  of 
Philadelphia  imprisoned  him  for  some  time  in  the  city 
jail,  and  confiscated  a  portion  of  his  property.  He  was 
frequently  consulted  by  members  of  Congress,  and 
wrote  many  articles  on  economic  subjects.  In  1779- 
1785  he  published  a  series  of  Essays  on  Free  Trade  and 
Finance  which  won  for  him  the  title  of  the  "Adam 
Smith  of  America."  His  most  notable  and  influential 
work,  however,  was  the  Dissertation  on  the  Constitution, 
amplified  from  one  of  his  essays  published  in  1781. 
Its  chief  principles  were : 

I.  There  must  be  a  supreme  authority  with  power  to 
effect  its  ends. 

II.  There  must  be  checks  to  prevent  abuse  of  this  power, 
but  not  sufficient  to  diminish  the  dignity  or  effectiveness 
of  the  authority. 

III.  There  must  be  an  absolute  transfer  to  the  Federal 
Government  by  the  States  of  such  part  of  their  sovereignty 
as  necessary  to  make  the  union  effectual. 

Such  a  union  would  be  effective  for  common  defense; 
would  enable  commercial  treaties  to  be  formed  with 
foreign  powers,  seeking  the  vast  natural  products  of 
America;  would  settle  disputes  between  the  States,  etc. 

The   architecture   of  such   a   constitution   must   be 


190  American  Debate  [1787- 

carefully  planned  since,  if  one  error  is  introduced  leading 
to  inequality  or  injustice,  "one  beam  cut  a  foot  too  long 
or  two  short, "  it  will  in  time  cause  the  ruin  of  the  whole. 
"A  house  divided  against  itself"  cannot  stand.1 

For  the  plan  of  Webster  in  full  the  reader  is  referred 
to  Appendix  XI.  of  The  Origin  and  Growth  of  the  Ameri 
can  Constitution,  by  Hannis  Taylor.  Its  general  na 
ture  will  be  indicated  by  a  comparison  which  Webster 
instituted  in  1791  between  it  and  the  Constitution 
adopted  (see  his  complete  works). 

1.  Legislative  and  executive  departments  to  be  distinct: 
the  first  to  be  composed  of  the  two  Houses  of  Congress  (so 
that  each  should  act  as  a  check  on  the  other) ;  the  second 
of  a  Grand  Council  of  State.     (Partially  adopted.) 

2.  A  Chamber  of  Commerce,  consisting  of  merchants,  to 
act  as  an  advisory  board  of  Congress  in  matters  of  trade  and 
revenue,  and  to  conduct  the  administration  of  revenue. 
(Not  adopted.) 

3.  Public  officers  appointed  by  executive  authority  to 
be  amenable  to,  and  removable  for  just  cause  by,  either  the 
legislative  or  executive  power.     (Qualified.) 

4.  Election  of  the  President,  Senators,  Representatives, 
et  al.,  to  be  left  to  the  discretion  of  Congress  and  the  States. 
(Not  adopted.) 

Minor  points  in  Webster's  Dissertation  which  are  of 
interest  to  students  of  debate  are : 

1.  Trade  a  chief  concern  of  government. 

2.  Supreme  importance  of  the  taxing  power. 

3.  Retention  of  efficient  officers   in   the   public  service, 
as  opposed  to  the  prevalent  theory  of  rotation  in  office. 
(A  point  in  discussion  of  Civil  Service.) 

1  How  this  pregnant  prophecy  was  fulfilled  will  be  seen  in  Lincoln's 
speech  on  the  text.  It  was  the  ill-fitting  timber  of  slavery  which 
almost  caused  the  downfall  of  the  temple  of  liberty. 


1789]  The  Constitution  191 

4.  Frequent  elections  as  a  check  on  inefficiency  and 
misconduct  of  public  officers.    (A  point  in  discussion  of  the 
Recall  of  Officers.) 

5.  The  value  of  land,  being  created  by  population,  as  a 
natural  and  just  standard  for  determining  contributions  to 
public  revenue.     (A  point  in  discussion  of  the  Single  Tax.) 

6.  Unsettled  lands  the  common  property  of  the  nation. 

7.  Open  debates  in  Congress,   as  a  check  on  political 
scheming  and  hasty  and  ill-advised  legislation.     (For  some 
time  after  the  adoption  of  the  Constitution  the  proceedings 
of  the  Senate  were  not  published.) 

8.  Amendment,  repeal,  and  new  legislation  as  the  proper 
cure  for  bad  laws.     (A  point  in  the  discussion  of  the  Initia 
tive  and  Referendum.) 

9.  Advantages  of  a  dictatorship  in  war.     (A  point  in  the 
discussion  of  Military  vs.  Civil  Power.) 

10.  Complete  control  of  the  purse  by  Congress. 

11.  All  laws  to  carry  power  of  enforcing  them.     (A  point 
in  the  discussion  of  State  Rights.) 

12.  Coercion  of  a  State  by  the  Federal  Government  for 
the  national  welfare.     (The  same.) 

James  Madison  gave  credit  to  Webster  for  influencing 
the  public  mind  in  favor  of  adopting  a  better  form  of 
government,  without,  however,  ascribing  to  him  the 
paternity  of  principles  incorporated  in  the  Constitution. 
For  this  omission  Hannis  Taylor,  who  claims  for  Web 
ster  the  entire  merit  of  "inventing"  the  plan  of  the  new 
government,  censures  Madison,  though  unjustly,  it 
would  seem,  in  view  of  the  deep  thought  which  the 
young  Virginian,  and,  indeed,  all  the  constructive 
minds  among  our  early  statesmen,  had  given  to  the 
subject  in  connection  with  the  adoption  of  constitutions 
by  the  several  States  and  of  the  Articles  of  Confedera 
tion  by  them  all.  Madison,  Charles  Pinckney  [S.  CJ, 
and  Hamilton  went  to  the  Constitutional  Convention 


192  American  Debate  [1787- 

with  plans  of  government  already  prepared.  It  is 
unlikely  that  Pinckney  had  ever  heard  of  Webster,  and 
we  have  already  presented  evidence  to  show  that  the 
ideas  of  Madison  and  Hamilton  on  the  subject  of 
government  had  already  been  fixed  before  Webster 
published  his  first  essay  on  the  subject. 

Nevertheless  Webster's  plan,  excelling  all  others  in 
detail  of  practical  political  institutions,  and  in  its 
economic  features  outrunning  all  the  thought  of  his 
time,  fully  deserves  Mr.  Taylor's  encomium  as  "the 
epoch-making  achievement  which  must  forever  stand 
forth  as  a  beacon-light  in  the  world's  political  history. " 

The  Constitutional  Convention.  The  convention 
met,  as  appointed,  in  Philadelphia  in  May,  1787.  As 
stated,  Rhode  Island  was  not  represented,  and  the 
delegates  from  New  Hampshire  did  not  appear  until 
late  in  the  session,  the  legislature  of  the  State  having 
failed  at  an  earlier  date  to  provide  their  expenses. 

George  Washington  was  elected  chairman.  Ques 
tions  were  to  be  voted  on  by  States,  seven  forming  a 
quorum,  and  a  majority  deciding.  All  of  the  proceed 
ings  were  to  be  secret,  in  order,  wrote  Madison  to 
Jefferson  in  Paris,  "to  secure  unbiased  discussion  within 
doors,  and  to  prevent  misconceptions  and  misconstruc 
tions  without."  Jefferson  replied  deploring  the  rule: 

"I  am  sorry  they  began  their  deliberations  by  so  abomi 
nable  a  precedent.  .  .  .  Nothing  can  justify  this  ex 
ample  but  the  innocence  of  their  intentions  and  ignorance 
of  the  value  of  public  discussions.  I  have  no  doubt  that 
all  their  other  measures  will  be  good  and  wise.  It  is  really 
an  assembly  of  demigods." 

Owing  to  this  lack  of  an  official  record  of  the  pro 
ceedings  we  must  rely  on  Judge  Robert  Yates's  and 


1789]  The  Constitution  193 

James  Madison's  reports  (both  published  in  "Elliott's 
Debates"),  and  on  letters  of  other  delegates,  documents, 
etc.,  which  have  been  preserved.  These  latter  have 
been  gathered  together  by  Professor  Max  Farrand  of 
Yale  University  in  his  exhaustive  compilation  The 
Records  of  the  Federal  Convention  (1911).  The  reader 
is  particularly  referred  to  page  87  of  the  "Records" 
for  character  sketches  of  the  members,  drawn  by 
William  Pierce,  a  delegate  from  Georgia,  which  were 
published  long  after  the  Convention  in  a  Savannah 
newspaper.  We  reproduce  here  the  sketches  of  the 
men  most  prominent  in  the  proceedings,  those  at  least 
deserving  of  the  high  encomium  of  Jefferson. 


Pierce's  Sketches  of  Prominent  Delegates.  Genl.  Wash 
ington  [Va.]  is  well  known  as  the  Commander  in  chief  of  the 
late  American  Army.  Having  conducted  these  states  to 
independence  and  peace,  he  now  appears  to  assist  in  framing 
a  Government  to  make  the  People  happy.  Like  Gustavus 
Vasa,  he  may  be  said  to  be  the  deliverer  of  his  Country ; — 
like  Peter  the  great  he  appears  as  the  politician  and  the 
States-man;  and  like  Cincinnatus  he  returned  to  his  farm 
perfectly  contented  with  being  only  a  plain  Citizen,  after 
enjoying  the  highest  honor  of  the  Confederacy, — and  now 
only  seeks  for  the  approbation  of  his  Country-men  by  being 
virtuous  and  useful.  The  General  was  conducted  to  the 
Chair  as  President  of  the  Convention  by  the  unanimous 
voice  of  its  Members.  He  is  in  the  52d.  year  of  his  age. 

"  Mr.  [George]  Wythe  [Va.]  is  the  famous  Professor  of  Law 
at  the  University  of  William  and  Mary.  He  is  confessedly 
one  of  the  most  learned  legal  Characters  of  the  present  age. 
From  his  close  attention  to  the  study  of  general  learning 
he  has  acquired  a  compleat  knowledge  of  the  dead  languages 
and  all  the  sciences.  He  is  remarked  for  his  examplary 
life,  and  universally  esteemed  for  his  good  principles.  No 
13 


194  American  Debate  [1787- 

Man  it  is  said  understands  the  history  of  Government  better 
than  Mr.  Wythe,— nor  any  one  who  understands  the  fluc 
tuating  condition  to  which  all  societies  are  liable  better  than 
he  does,  yet  from  his  too  favorable  opinion  of  Men,  he  is  no 
great  politician.  He  is  a  neat  and  pleasing  Speaker,  and  a 
most  correct  and  able  Writer.  Mr.  Wythe  is  about  55 
years  of  age. 

"  Mr.  [George]  Mason  [Va.]  is  a  Gentleman  of  remarkable 
strong  powers,  and  possesses  a  clear  and  copious  under 
standing.  He  is  able  and  convincing  in  debate,  steady  and 
firm  in  his  principles,  and  undoubtedly  one  of  the  best 
politicians  in  America.  Mr.  Mason  is  about  60  years  old, 
with  a  fine  strong  constitution. 

"  Mr.  [Edmund]  Randolph  [Va.]  is  Governor  of  Virginia, — 
a  young  Gentleman  in  whom  unite  all  the  accomplishments 
of  the  Scholar,  and  the  States-man.  He  came  forward  with 
the  postulata,  or  first  principles,  on  which  the  Convention 
acted,  and  he  supported  them  with  a  force  of  eloquence 
and  reasoning  that  did  him  great  honor.  He  has  a  most 
harmonious  voice,  a  fine  person  and  striking  manners.  Mr. 
Randolph  is  about  32  years  of  age. 

"  Mr.  [James]  Maddison  [Va.]  is  a  character  who  has  long 
been  in  public  life ;  and  what  is  very  remarkable  every  Person 
seems  to  acknowledge  his  greatness.  He  blends  together 
the  profound  politician,  with  the  Scholar.  In  the  manage 
ment  of  every  great  question  he  evidently  took  the  lead  in 
the  Convention,  and  tho'  he  cannot  be  called  an  Orator, 
he  is  a  most  agreeable,  eloquent,  and  convincing  Speaker. 
From  a  spirit  of  industry  and  application  which  he  possesses 
in  a  most  eminent  degree,  he  always  comes  forward  the  best 
informed  Man  of  any  point  in  debate.  The  affairs  of  the 
United  States,  he  perhaps,  has  the  most  correct  knowledge 
of,  of  any  Man  in  the  Union.  He  has  been  twice  a  Member 
of  Congress,  and  was  always  thought  one  of  the  ablest 
Members  that  ever  sat  in  that  Council.  Mr.  Maddison  is 
about  37  years  of  age,  a  Gentleman  of  great  modesty, — with 
a  remarkable  sweet  temper.  He  is  easy  and  unreserved 


1789]  The  Constitution  195 

among  his  acquaintance,  and  has  a  most  agreeable  style  of 
conversation. 

"Dr.  [Benjamin]  Franklin  [Pa.]  is  well  known  to  be  the 
greatest  phylosopher  of  the  present  age ; — all  the  operations 
of  nature  he  seems  to  understand, — the  very  heavens  obey 
him,  and  the  Clouds  yield  up  their  lightning  to  be  imprisoned 
in  his  rod.  But  what  claim  he  has  to  the  politician,  poster 
ity  must  determine.  It  is  certain  that  he  does  not  shine 
much  in  public  Council, — he  is  no  Speaker,  nor  does  he 
seem  to  let  politics  engage  his  attention.  He  is,  however, 
a  most  extraordinary  Man,  and  tells  a  story  in  a  style 
more  engaging  than  anything  I  ever  heard.  Let  his  Bi 
ographer  finish  his  character.  He  is  82  years  old,  and 
possesses  an  activity  of  mind  equal  to  a  youth  of  25  years 
of  age. 

"Mr.  [James]  Wilson  [Pa.]  ranks  among  the  foremost  in 
legal  and  political  knowledge.  He  has  joined  to  a  fine 
genius  all  that  can  set  him  off  and  show  him  to  advantage. 
He  is  well  acquainted  with  Man,  and  understands  all  the 
passions  that  influence  him.  Government  seems  to  have 
been  his  peculiar  Study,  all  the  political  institutions  of  the 
World  he  knows  in  detail,  and  can  trace  the  causes  and 
effects  of  every  revolution  from  the  earliest  stages  of  the 
Greecian  commonwealth  down  to  the  present  time.  No 
man  is  more  clear,  copious,  and  comprehensive  than  Mr. 
Wilson,  yet  he  is  no  great  Orator.  He  draws  the  attention 
not  by  the  charm  of  his  eloquence,  but  by  the  force  of  his 
reasoning.  He  is  about  45  years  old. 

"Mr.  Governeur  Morris  [Pa.]  is  one  of  those  Genius's  in 
whom  every  species  of  talents  combine  to  render  him  con 
spicuous  and  flourishing  in  public  debate: — He  winds 
through  all  the  mazes  of  rhetoric,  and  throws  around  him 
such  a  glare  that  he  charms,  captivates,  and  leads  away 
the  senses  of  all  who  hear  him.  With  an  infinite  streach 
of  fancy  he  brings  to  view  things  when  he  is  engaged  in  deep 
argumentation,  that  render  all  the  labor  of  reasoning  easy 
and  pleasing.  But  with  all  these  powers  he  is  fickle  and 


196  American  Debate  1*787- 

inconstant, — never  pursuing  one  train  of  thinking, — nor 
ever  regular.  He  has  gone  through  a  very  extensive  course 
of  reading,  and  is  acquainted  with  all  the  sciences.  No 
Man  has  more  wit, — nor  can  any  one  engage  the  attention 
more  than  Mr.  Morris.  He  was  bred  to  the  Law,  but  I  am 
told  he  disliked  the  profession,  and  turned  merchant.  He 
is  engaged  in  some  great  mercantile  matters  with  his  name 
sake  Mr.  Robt.  Morris.  This  Gentleman  is  about  38 
years  old,  he  has  been  unfortunate  in  losing  one  of  his  Legs, 
and  getting  all  the  flesh  taken  off  his  right  arm  by  a  scald, 
when  a  youth. 

"Colo.  [Alexander]  Hamilton  [N.  Y.]  is  deservedly 
celebrated  for  his  talents.  He  is  a  practitioner  of  the  Law, 
and  reputed  to  be  a  finished  Scholar.  To  a  clear  and  strong 
judgment  he  unites  the  ornaments  of  fancy,  and  whilst  he 
is  able,  convincing,  and  engaging  in  his  eloquence  the  Heart 
and  Head  sympathize  in  approving  him.  Yet  there  is 
something  too  feeble  in  his  voice  to  be  equal  to  the  strains 
of  oratory ; — it  is  my  opinion  that  he  is  rather  a  convincing 
Speaker,  than  a  blazing  Orator.  Colo.  Hamilton  requires 
time  to  think, — he  enquires  into  every  part  of  his  subject 
with  the  searchings  of  phylosophy,  and  when  he  comes  for 
ward  he  comes  highly  charged  with  interesting  matter, 
there  is  no  skimming  over  the  surface  of  a  subject  with 
him,  he  must  sink  to  the  bottom  to  see  what  foundation 
it  rests  on. — His  language  is  not  always  equal,  sometimes 
didactic  like  Bolingbroke's  at  others  light  and  tripping 
like  Stern's.  His  eloquence  is  not  so  defusive  as  to  trifle 
with  the  senses,  but  he  rambles  just  enough  to  strike  and 
keep  up  the  attention.  He  is  about  33  years  old  of  small 
stature,  and  lean.  His  manners  are  tinctured  with  stiff 
ness,  and  sometimes  with  a  degree  of 'vanity  that  is  highly 
disagreeable. 

"Mr.  [Robert]  Yates  [N.  Y.]  is  said  to  be  an  able  Judge. 
He  is  a  man  of  great  legal  abilities,  but  not  distinguished 
as  an  Orator.  Some  of  his  enemies  say  he  is  an  anti- 
federal  Man,  but  I  discovered  no  such  disposition  in 


1789]  The  Constitution  197 

him.  He  is  about  45  years  old,  and  enjoys  a  great  share  of 
health. 

"Mr.  [William]  Pat[t]erson  [N.  J.]  is  one  of  those  kind  of 
men  whose  powers  break  in  upon  you,  and  create  wonder 
and  astonishment.  He  is  a  Man  of  great  modesty,  with 
looks  that  bespeak  talents  of  no  great  extent, — but  he  is  a 
Classic,  a  Lawyer,  and  an  Orator; — and  of  a  disposition  so 
favorable  to  his  advancement  that  every  one  seemed 
ready  to  exalt  him  with  their  praises.  He  is  very  happy 
in  the  choice  of  time  and  manner  of  engaging  in  a  debate, 
and  never  speaks  but  when  he  understands  his  subject 
well.  This  gentleman  is  about  34  ys.  of  age,  of  very  low 
stature. 

"Mr.  [Rufus]  King  [Mass.]  is  a  Man  much  distinguished 
for  his  eloquence  and  great  parliamentary  talents.  He  was 
educated  in  Massachusetts  and  is  said  to  have  good  classical 
as  well  as  legal  knowledge.  He  has  served  for  three  years 
in  the  Congress  of  the  United  States  with  great  and  deserved 
applause,  and  is  at  this  time  high  in  the  confidence  and 
approbation  of  his  Country-men.  This  Gentleman  is  about 
thirty  three  years  of  age,  about  five  feet,  ten  Inches  high, 
well  formed,  an  handsome  face,  with  a  strong,  expressive  Eye, 
and  a  sweet  high-toned  voice.  In  his  public  speaking  there 
is  something  peculiarly  strong  and  rich  in  his  expression, 
clear,  and  convincing  in  his  arguments,  rapid  and  irresistible 
at  times  in  his  eloquence  but  he  is  not  always  equal.  His 
action  is  natural,  swimming,  and  graceful,  but  there  is  a 
rudeness  of  manner  sometimes  accompanying  it.  But 
take  him  tout  en  semble,  he  may  with  propriety  be  ranked 
among  the  Luminaries  of  the  present  Age. 

"The  character  of  Mr.  [Elbridge]  Gerry  [Mass.]  is 
marked  for  integrity  and  perseverance.  He  is  a  hesitating 
and  laborious  speaker ; — possesses  a  great  degree  of  confi 
dence  and  goes  extensively  into  all  subjects  that  he  speaks 
on,  without  respect  to  elegance  or  flower  of  diction.  He  is 
connected  and  sometimes  clear  in  his  arguments,  conceives 
well,  and  cherishes  as  his  first  virtue,  a  love  for  his  Country. 


198  American  Debate  [1787- 

Mr.  Gerry  is  very  much  of  a  Gentleman  in  his  principles 
and  manners; — he  has  been  engaged  in  the  mercantile 
line  and  is  a  Man  of  property.  He  is  about  37  years  of 
age. 

"Mr.  [Oliver]  El[l]sworth  [Ct.]  is  a  Judge  of  the  Supreme 
Court  in  Connecticut ; — he  is  a  Gentleman  of  a  clear,  deep, 
and  copious  understanding;  eloquent,  and  connected  in 
public  debate ;  and  always  attentive  to  his  duty.  He  is  very 
happy  in  a  reply,  and  choice  in  selecting  such  parts  of  his 
adversary's  arguments  as  he  finds  make  the  strongest  im 
pressions, — in  order  to  take  off  the  force  of  them,  so  as  to 
admit  the  power  of  his  own.  Mr.  Elsworth  is  about  37 
years  of  age,  a  Man  much  respected  for  his  integrity,  and 
venerated  for  his  abilities. 

"  Mr.  [Luther]  Martin  [Md.]  was  educated  for  the  Bar  and 
is  Attorney  general  for  the  State  of  Maryland.  This 
Gentleman  possesses  a  good  deal  of  information,  but  has  a 
very  bad  delivery,  and  [is]  so  extremely  prolix,  that  he  never 
speaks  without  tiring  the  patience  of  all  who  hear  him.  He 
is  about  34  years  of  age. 

"Mr.  Chs.  Cotesworth  Pinckney  [S.  C.]  is  a  gentleman 
of  Family  and  fortune  in  his  own  State.  He  has  received  the 
advantage  of  a  liberal  education,  and  possesses  a  very 
extensive  degree  of  legal  knowledge.  When  warm  in  a 
debate  he  sometimes  speaks  well, — but  he  is  generally  con 
sidered  an  indifferent  Orator.  Mr.  Pinckney  was  an  Officer 
of  high  rank  in  the  American  army,  and  served  with  great 
reputation  through  the  War.  He  is  now  about  40  years 
of  age. 

"Mr.  Charles  Pinckney  [S.  C.]  is  a  young  Gentleman  of 
the  most  promising  talents.  He  is,  altho'  only  24 
ys.  of  age,  in  possession  of  a  very  great  variety  of  knowl 
edge.  Government,  Law,  History  and  Phylosophy  are  his 
favorite  studies,  but  he  is  intimately  acquainted  with  every 
species  of  polite  learning,  and  has  a  spirit  of  application  and 
industry  beyond  most  Men.  He  speaks  with  great  neatness 
and  perspicuity,  and  treats  every  subject  as  fully,  without 


1789]  The  Constitution  199 

running  into  prolixity,  as  it  requires.  He  has  been  a 
Member  of  Congress,  and  served  in  that  Body  with  ability 
and  eclat."1 

The  first  question  taken  up  by  the  Convention  was 
as  to  whether  they  should  amend  the  old  government  or 
form  an  entirely  new  system.  By  the  resolution  of 
Congress  empowering  the  Convention  to  act,  as  well 
as  by  the  instructions  of  some  of  the  States,  notably 
Virginia,  to  their  delegates,  they  were  met  "for  the  sole 
and  express  purpose  of  revising  the  Articles  of  Confed 
eration.  "  So  great  were  the  defects  of  the  Articles  that 
a  majority  decided  to  construe  the  instructions  liberally 
and  form  what  was  virtually  a  new  Constitution. 

The  Randolph  Plan.  On  May  29,  Edmund  Ran 
dolph,  who,  as  Governor  of  Virginia  led  his  delegation, 
submitted  fifteen  resolutions  as  the  basis  of  a  new 
constitution.  They  were  inspired  by  James  Madison, 
but  with  characteristic  modesty  and  political  shrewd 
ness  he  had  secured  the  reluctant  consent  of  Randolph, 
as  a  man  of  position  and  influence,  to  "father"  them. 

The  essential  features  of  this  plan  were  (i)  a  Congress  of 
two  Houses,  the  first  directly  elected  by  the  people,  and  the 
second  chosen  by  the  first  from  nominees  of  the  State  legis 
latures,  each  branch  to  originate  acts,  and  both  together 
to  possess  the  powers  of  the  old  Congress  and  also  the 
power  to  legislate  on  national  questions  where  the  separate 
States  are  incompetent  to  act;  (2)  an  executive  chosen  by 
Congress,  with  power  to  revise  legislation  in  conjunction 
with  the  judiciary,  but  with  the  veto  subject  to  overruling 
by  Congress;  and  (3)  a  judiciary  with  power  to  pass  with 
final  force  on  foreign  and  Federal  questions. 

1  "Mr.  Pinckney  frequently  spoke  of  the  deep  diffidence  and  solemnity 
which  he  felt,  being  the  youngest  member  of  the  body,  whenever  he 
addressed  the  Federal  Convention." — J.  B.  O'Neall,  Biographical 
Sketches  of  the  Bench  and  Bar  of  South  Carolina,  Charleston,  1859. 


200  American  Debate  [1787- 

The  Pinckney  Plan.  On  the  same  day  Charles 
Pinckney  [S.  C.]  also  presented  a  plan  of  government. 

It  provided  (i)  for  the  division  of  government  into  the 
same  three  departments ;  (2)  for  a  Congress  of  two  chambers, 
the  first  a  popular  House  with  representation  based  on 
population,  and  with  exclusive  power  over  money  bills  and 
impeachment  of  Federal  legislators  and  officers,  the  second 
a  Senate  to  be  chosen  by  the  first  and  based  on  population ; 
(3)  for  Congress  to  have  power  to  lay  taxes,  duties,  excises, 
etc. ;  to  regulate  foreign  and  interstate  commerce,  to  borrow 
money,  etc.;  to  establish  post-offices  and  post-roads;  to 
raise  fleets  and  armies,  control  the  militia  of  the  States  and 
suppress  insurrections ;  to  coin  money ;  to  establish  rules  for 
naturalization ;  to  form  a  Federal  district  as  a  national  cap 
ital,  etc. ;  direct  national  taxation  to  be  based  on  population; 
export  taxes  to  be  forbidden;  freedom  of  religion  and  the 
press,  trial  by  jury,  etc.,  to  be  guaranteed ;  Senate  to  have 
exclusive  power  to  declare  war,  make  treaties,  appoint 
ambassadors  and  Federal  judges,  and  decide  interstate 
disputes  over  territory ;  (4)  for  a  President  with  virtually  all 
the  powers  afterwards  given  him ;  (5)  for  a  Federal  judiciary 
of  the  nature  of  that  afterwards  established;  (6)  for  denial 
to  the  States  of  conflicting  sovereignty  in  the  foregoing 
provisions ;  (7)  for  interstate  extradition  of  persons  charged 
with  crime;  (8)  for  admission  by  Congress  of  new  States; 
and  (9)  for  amendment  of  the  Constitution  by  a  conven 
tion,  called  by  Congress  on  initiative  of  two  thirds  of  the 
States.1 

The  plans  of  Randolph  and  Pinckney  were  referred 
to  a  committee  of  the  whole,  which  debated  the  resolu- 

1  Shortly  after  the  Convention  Pinckney  published  a  pamphlet 
containing  his  Observations  on  the  Plan  of  Government  Submitted  to  the 
federal  Convention  Delivered  at  Different  Times  in  the  Course  of  Their 
Discussions.  It  is  reproduced  in  full  in  Farrand's  Records  vol.  iii.,  page 
106. 


1789]  The  Constitution  201 

tions  until  June  13,  when  the  committee  reported  to 
the  Convention  nineteen  resolutions. 

The  Committee's  Plan.  The  salient  features  of  this 
plan  were: 

(i)  Three  departments  of  government,  legislative,  judicial, 
and  executive;  (2)  two  Houses  of  Congress,  the  first  to  be 
elected  by  the  people  of  the  States,  the  second  by  the  legis 
latures,  and  both  to  have  power  of  initiating  and  enacting 
legislation;  (3)  this  legislation  to  be  of  the  character  of  that 
of  the  existing  Congress,  and,  in  addition,  to  cover  all  cases 
in  which  the  separate  States  are  incompetent  or  conflicting, 
with  a  veto  on  State  acts  contravening  the  Constitution  or 
foreign  treaties;  (4)  representation  in  both  Houses  to  be 
based  on  population  of  free  citizens  and  three-fifths  of  other 
persons,  except  Indians  not  taxed,  in  each  State;  (5)  the 
executive  to  be  a  President  chosen  by  Congress  for  a  term  of 
seven  years,  and  ineligible  for  reelection,  with  the  powers 
that  were  afterwards  adopted  in  the  Constitution;  (6)  a 
Supreme  Court  and  inferior  Federal  tribunals,  both  ap 
pointed  by  the  second  House  of  Congress,  which  should  have 
jurisdiction  over  national  revenue,  impeachment  of  national 
officers,  and  questions  involving  national  peace  and  har 
mony. 

Paterson's  Plan.  On  June  15,  William  Paterson 
[N.  J.]  presented  an  opposing  plan  to  the  Convention. 
This  was  a  revision  of  the  Articles  of  Confederation, 
giving  Congress  power  to  impose  customs  duties  and 
stamp  taxes;  to  regulate  foreign  and  interstate  com 
merce,  and  to  make  requisitions  of  funds  on  the  States 
in  proportion  to  free  population. 

The  Federal  executive  was  to  be  a  fixed  number  of  per 
sons  appointed  for  a  fixed  term  by  Congress  and  empowered 
to  execute  Federal  acts,  appoint  Federal  officers  not  other- 


202  American  Debate  [1787- 

wise  chosen,  and  direct  military  operations,  though  not  in 
person. 

A  Federal  judiciary  was  to  be  appointed  by  Congress,  to 
serve  during  good  behavior,  and  to  adjudicate  impeach 
ments  of  Federal  officers  and  to  decide  finally  on  cases 
concerned  with  foreign  affairs  and  Federal  revenue. 

Debate  on  Popular  vs.  State  Representation.    The 

main  issue  was  now  fairly  before  the  Convention. 
Behind  the  Virginia  plan,  as  that  of  the  committee 
of  the  whole  was  called,  were  arranged  in  the  main 
representatives  from  the  more  populous  States;  be 
hind  the  Jersey  plan,  as  that  of  Mr.  Paterson  was 
denominated,  were  the  delegates  from  the  smaller 
States. 

Alexander  Hamilton,  who  opposed  both  plans,  having 
one  of  his  own  ready  for  presentation,  moved  that  they 
be  referred  to  the  committee  of  the  whole  in  order 
that  a  comparison  might  be  instituted  between  them. 
The  motion  was  adopted,  and  upon  June  16  the  great 
debate  began  over  the  question  whether  the  Federal 
Government  should  be  representative  of  the  people  or 
the  States. 

Mr.  Wilson,  whose  power  of  clear  analysis  has  already 
been  shown  to  the  reader  in  the  issue  between  the 
colonies  and  the  Crown  (see  page  115),  began  with  a 
tabulation  of  the  salient  differences  between  the  two 
plans: 

Virginia  proposes  two  branches  in  the  legislature ;  Jersey, 
one. 

Virginia  derives  the  legislative  powers  from  the  people; 
Jersey,  from  the  States. 

Virginia  proposes  a  single  executive;  Jersey,  more  than 
one. 


1789]  The  Constitution  203 

Virginia  authorizes  the  legislature  to  act  on  all  national 
concerns;  Jersey,  only  on  limited  objects. 

Virginia  authorizes  the  legislature  to  negative  State 
laws ;  Jersey  gives  power  to  the  executive  to  compel  obedi 
ence  by  force. 

Virginia  proposes  to  remove  the  executive  by  impeach 
ment;  Jersey,  on  application  by  a  majority  of  the  States. 

Virginia  establishes  inferior  Federal  courts ;  Jersey  makes 
no  provision  for  this. 

Mr.  Wilson  then  attacked  the  strong  position  of  the 
advocates  of  the  Jersey  plan  that,  by  the  terms  of  its 
call,  the  Convention  was  limited  to  a  revision  of  the 
Articles  of  Confederation. 

Back  of  the  State  legislatures  and  the  Congress  which 
authorized  the  Convention  were  the  people,  and  these 
demanded  relief  from  the  embarrassed  situation  in  which 
the  country  found  itself.  They  had  called  a  national 
convention,  and  they  expected  a  national  government. 
Such  a  government  was  framed  in  the  Virginia  plan  and  not 
in  the  Jersey  plan  and  so  the  former  was  preferable.  The 
Articles  of  Confederation  could  not  be  revised  to  afford  a 
national  government,  since  their  essential  feature,  a  Con 
gress  in  which  States,  large  and  small,  were  equally  repre 
sented,  must  be  retained.  Until  this  principle,  prohibitory 
of  equal  representation  of  the  people,  was  abolished,  there 
could  be  no  democratic  government,  and  therefore  he 
refused  to  give  to  a  Congress  so  constituted  the  enlarged 
powers  necessary  to  a  national  legislature.  Inequality 
in  government,  he  said,  poisons  every  government,  and  he 
cited  to  prove  this  the  venality  of  the  British  Parliament 
as  opposed  to  the  incorruptibility  of  the  British  courts, 
which  were  independent  of  Parliament. 

The  argument  for  the  Jersey  plan  went  too  far:  the  plan 
could  not  be  completed  unless  Rhode  Island  assented — and 
Rhode  Island  was  not  represented  in  the  Convention! 


204  American  Debate  [1787- 

Granted  that  it  did  assent,  what  kind  of  a  national  govern 
ment  would  the  Jersey  plan  afford  if,  by  Rhode  Island's 
subsequent  refusal,  or  that  of  another  single  State,  to  act  in 
accordance  with  the  desire  of  the  other  members  of  the  Con 
federation,  the  work  of  Congress  was  utterly  nullified? 
Here  he  quoted  Lord  Chesterfield  on  the  weakness  of  the 
government  of  the  States  of  the  United  Netherlands  as 
due  to  the  same  fundamental  defect. 


In  behalf  of  the  proposal  of  the  Virginia  plan  for 
two  legislatures,  as  opposed  to  the  single  chamber  of  the 
Jersey  plan,  he  urged  the  need  of  a  legislative  check 
upon  legislative  action. 

A  single  legislature  is  very  dangerous:  despotism  may 
present  itself  in  various  forms.  May  there  not  be  legisla 
tive  despotism,  if,  in  the  exercise  of  its  power  Congress  is 
unrestrained  by  another  branch? 

On  the  other  hand,  an  executive,  to  be  restrained,  must  be 
checked,  not  by  another  executive,  but  by  a  different 
branch  of  government.  Executive  power,  to  be  both 
effective  and  democratic,  must  be  single  in  responsibility, 
and  placed  in  the  hands  of  an  individual,  held  accountable 
for  his  acts  by  the  people  as  represented  in  a  truly  popular 
legislature.  Here  the  speaker  pointed  to  the  two  joint 
kings  of  Sparta  and  the  dual  consulate  of  the  Roman 
republic  as  distracting  to  their  respective  governments,  and 
to  the  triumvirates  of  Rome  as  fatal  to  the  liberties  of  the 
people. 

Judge  Paterson,  in  support  of  his  plan,  replied  to  the 
able  lawyer  from  Pennsylvania.  With  a  simplicity 
characteristic  of  the  highest  order  of  debaters,  the 
Attorney-General  of  New  Jersey  based  his  arguments 
on  two  propositions:  that  the  Jersey  plan  accorded  (i) 


1789]  The  Constitution  205 

with  the  powers  of  the  Convention;  and  (2)  with  the 
sentiments  of  the  people. 

The  first  of  these  was  self-evident ;  the  second  was  capable 
of  demonstration  by  the  instructions  given  to  the  delegates 
of  a  number  of  the  States,  and  by  the  expression  of  opinion 
by  popular  leaders  in  the  other  States  which,  in  view  of 
the  nature  of  the  call  of  the  Convention  (that  it  was  to 
revise  the  Articles  of  Convention),  did  not  specifically 
instruct  their  representatives  to  limit  deliberations  to  this 
action. 

Therefore,  concluded  Judge  Paterson,  if  it  was  true,  as 
held  by  the  advocates  of  the  Virginia  plan,  that  the  sub 
sisting  Confederation  was  so  radically  defective  as  not  to 
admit  of  amendment,  the  Convention  had  no  authority  to 
replace  it  by  a  new  form  of  government,  but  must  rest 
satisfied  with  reporting  the  insufficiency,  and  wait  to  receive 
from  the  States  enlarged  powers  to  draft  the  Constitution 
which  in  the  opinion  of  the  Convention  was  required  for 
the  nation. 

The  fundamental  principle  of  the  present  government 
was  that  of  all  Confederations,  that  the  constituent  States 
should  be  equal  in  powers :  the  dissent  of  one  State  rendered 
every  proposal  null. 

In  this  connection  the  speaker,  by  what,  in  view  of 
subsequent  American  political  history  appears  now  to 
be  a  paradox,  urged  in  behalf  of  State  rights  the  strong 
est  argument  against  secession. 

The  Confederation  is  of  the  nature  of  a  compact.  Can 
any  State,  unless  by  the  consent  of  the  whole,  either  in 
politics  or  in  law,  withdraw  its  powers?  Let  it  be  said  by 
Pennsylvania,  and  the  other  large  States,  that  they,  for  the 
sake  of  peace,  assented  to  the  Confederation;  can  she  or 
they  now  resume  the  original  rights  without  the  consent  of 


206  American  Debate  [1787- 

the  donee  [i.  e.,  the  States  as  a  whole]?  Let  it  be  remem 
bered  that,  while  the  larger  States  reluctantly  agreed  to 
equal  representation,  the  smaller  States  were  the  last  to 
approve  the  Confederation.  On  this  ground  representation 
must  be  derived  from  the  States  to  maintain  their  inde 
pendency,  and  not  from  the  people  composing  those  States. 

The  doctrine  advanced  by  the  learned  gentleman  from 
Pennsylvania  that  all  power  is  derived  from  the  people,  and 
that  in  proportion  to  their  numbers  they  ought  to  partici 
pate  in  the  benefits  and  rights  of  government,  is  right  in 
principle,  but,  unfortunately  for  him,  wrong  in  the  applica 
tion  to  the  question  now  in  debate. 

It  is  not  proposed  in  the  Virginia  plan  to  abolish  all  State 
rights  in  order  to  have  a  national  government.  Will 
Pennsylvania  admit  a  participation  of  its  common  stock  of 
land  to  the  citizens  of  New  Jersey?  I  fancy  not.  It 
therefore  follows  that  a  national  government  upon  the 
Virginia  plan  is  unjust,  and  destructive  of  the  common 
principles  of  reciprocity. 

Much  has  been  said  that  this  government  is  to  operate  on 
persons,  not  on  States.  Nevertheless  revenue  will  be  pro 
portioned  among  the  States  as  States,  and  in  this  business 
Georgia  will  have  one  vote  and  Virginia  sixteen.  The 
truth  is  both  plans  compel  individuals  to  comply  with 
requisitions,  though  the  requisition  is  made  on  the  States. 

On  the  question  of  a  legislature  of  two  branches  or 
one  the  speaker  expressed  an  opinion  which  shows  how 
far  our  present  national  government,  in  the  complexity 
of  its  functions  and  largeness  of  its  enterprises,  has 
departed  from  the  expectations  of  the  Fathers. 

Much  has  been  said  in  commendation  of  two  branches 
in  a  legislature,  and  of  the  advantages  of  their  being  checks 
to  each  other.  This  may  be  true  when  applied  to  the 
State  governments,  but  will  not  equally  apply  to  a  national 
legislature,  whose  objects  are  few  and  simple. 


1789]  The  Constitution  207 

In  conclusion  Judge  Paterson  denied  the  assumption 
of  the  advocates  of  a  new  government  that  the  old  one 
could  not  be  satisfactorily  retained  with  amendments. 

Let  us  fairly  try  whether  the  Confederation  cannot  be 
mended,  and,  if  it  can,  we  shall  do  our  duty,  and  I  believe 
the  people  will  be  satisfied. 

Charles  Cotesworth  Pinckney  [S.  C.]  supported  the 
Virginia  plan. 

Saying  that  it  was  evidently  the  ruling  sense  of  the  Con 
vention  that  the  Confederation  could  not  be  made  efficient, 
he  declared  that  it  was  proper  to  proceed  to  plan  a  new 
national  government,  and  to  do  this  the  Convention  was 
competent,  since  its  business  was  not  to  conclude,  but 
merely  to  recommend. 

Governor  Edmund  Randolph  [Va.]  declared  that  the 
sense  of  the  Convention  had  been  ascertained  to  be  in 
favor  of  its  power  to  frame  a  new  government  by  the 
adoption  of  the  Virginia  plan,  in  committee  of  the  whole, 
as  a  working  basis. 

Besides,  said  he,  the  Articles  of  Confederation  themselves 
provided  for  amendment  without  reservation  of  what  the 
advocates  of  the  Jersey  plan  contended  was  the  essential 
principle  of  the  instrument,  the  equality  of  the  States. 

As  to  the  question  of  whether  the  Convention  was  empow 
ered  to  frame  a  new  government,  he  dilated  upon  the 
weakness  of  the  old,  which  had  proved  to  be  so  destructive 
of  the  country's  interests,  and  maintained  that  the  best 
exercise  of  power  was  to  exert  it  for  the  public  good. 

On  June  18,  Colonel  Alexander  Hamilton  [N.  Y.] 
reopened  the  debate  with  a  speech  of  five  hours'  dura 
tion,  at  the  close  of  which  he  submitted  his  scheme  of 
government.  He  opposed  both  the  Virginia  and  Jer- 


208  American  Debate  [1787- 

sey  plans.  As  a  basis  of  his  opposition  he  advanced  the 
following  principles  as  fundamental  to  effective  national 
government : 

(i)  A  good  government  ought  to  be  constant  [  faithful  to 
its  national  purpose],  and  contain  an  active  principle;  (2) 
it  should  consider  utility  and  necessity;  (3)  it  should  possess 
an  habitual  sense  of  obligation;  (4)  be  competent  to  exercise 
force  and  (5)  influence. 

A  government  therefore  should  be  formed  in  which 
State  interests  would  not  predominate  over  national  inter 
ests  in  the  minds  of  the  people,  e.  g.,  Virginians,  by  the 
increase  of  the  present  preponderance  of  their  State,  should 
not  be  encouraged  to  become  indifferent  to  the  concerns 
of  the  Union. 

By  "force"  I  mean  the  coercion  of  law  and  of  arms.  By 
"influence"  I  mean  the  encouragement  of  self-interest  in 
support  of  the  Union  among  the  people.  To  this  end 
national  sovereignty  must  replace  that  of  the  State.  We 
must  annihilate  State  distinctions  and  State  operations. 
This  would  relieve  the  people  of  a  present  expense,  and  so 
enable  them  adequately  to  support  a  strong  national 
government,  which  they  cannot  do  under  either  of  the  two 
plans  before  us.  As  subsidiary  corporations  to  the  national 
government  the  States  might  be  retained  to  execute  its 
purposes  locally,  and  so  to  economize  national  expenditure. 

Hamilton  frankly  confessed  that  he  despaired  of 
the  ability  of  republican  government  to  remove  the 
difficulties  before  the  country,  and  declared  that  Great 
Britain  offered  the  best  model  for  government  that  the 
world  had  yet  produced,  in  that  by  it  were  obtained 
public  strength  and  individual  security. 

This  ideal,  said  he,  was  held  to  be  unattainable  in  America. 
But,  if  such  a  government  were  once  formed  here,  he  be 
lieved  it  would  maintain  itself. 


1789]  The  Constitution  209 

All  communities  divide  themselves  into  the  few  and  the 
many,  the  one  class  rich  and  well-born,  the  other,  the  mass 
of  the  people.  The  voice  of  the  people  is  said  to  be  the 
voice  of  God ;  this  is  not  true :  the  people  are  turbulent  and 
inconstant,  seldom  determining  rightly.  The  first  class 
are  more  stable  and  wise.  Give  them,  therefore,  a  dis 
tinct,  permanent  share  in  the  government,  to  check  the 
unsteadiness  of  the  second  class.  As  they  cannot  receive 
any  advantage  by  a  change,  they  will  maintain  good 
government. 

It  is  admitted  that  you  cannot  have  a  good  executive 
upon  a  democratic  plan.  Therefore,  as  in  Great  Britain, 
this  department  should  be  placed  above  temptation  to 
follow  interests  distinct  from  the  public  welfare.  Foreign 
influence  is  the  great  danger  in  republican  government; 
hence  strong  men  must  be  placed  in  power. 

Hamilton  therefore  proposed : 

(i)  That  one  branch  of  the  legislature  be  chosen  for  life 
or  good  behavior;  (2)  an  executive  be  appointed  who  dares 
use  his  power. 

It  may  be  said,  continued  he,  that  this  constitutes  an 
elective  monarchy.  But  the  executive  will  remain  subject 
to  impeachment,  and  so  the  term  cannot  apply. 

At  this  point  Hamilton  produced  his  plan. 

(i)  Two  chambers  of  legislation  with  unlimited  power  of 
passing  all  laws :  the  Assembly  to  be  elected  for  three  years 
by  the  people,  divided  into  districts;  the  Senate  to  be 
chosen  by  special  electors  for  life  or  good  behavior;  the 
legislature  to  supersede  the  States  in  judicial  appointments 
therein ;  (2)  the  executive  to  have  full  veto  power,  and  to 
make  war  or  peace,  form  treaties,  grant  pardons  for  crimes, 
treason  excepted,  and  appoint  Supreme  judges,  with  advice  of 
the  Senate ;  to  have  sole  direction  of  military  operations  and 

14 


210  American  Debate  [1787- 

f oreign  relations ;  on  his  death  or  removal  to  be  replaced  by 
the  president  of  the  Senate;  (3)  State  laws  contravening 
Federal  to  be  negatived  by  a  Federal  officer  appointed  in 
each  State  for  the  purpose ;  (4)  all  the  militia  to  be  officered 
and  directed  by  the  Federal  government. 

Hamilton  confessed  that  his  plan,  like  that  of  Vir 
ginia,  was  remote  from  the  ideal  of  the  people.  The 
Jersey  plan  was  nearer  their  expectation. 

But  the  people  are  ripening  in  their  opinions  of  govern 
ments;  they  are  tiring  of  an  excess  of  democracy.  Relief 
was  not  afforded  by  the  Virginia  plan ;  it  was  the  same  old 
pork  with  a  little  change  of  the  sauce. 

Judge  Yates,  in  his  minutes  of  the  Convention,  of 
which  the  foregoing  is  an  abstract,  remarked  that 
"Hamilton  was  praised  by  everybody,  but  supported 
by  none."  His  plan  was  not  even  referred  to  the 
"committee  on  detail"  appointed  on  July  26. 

On  June  19  James  Madison  [Va.]  made  the  closing 
argument  against  the  Jersey  plan.  He  first  addressed 
himself  to  the  competency  of  the  Convention  to  frame 
a  radically  different  form  of  government  from  that  of 
the  Confederation. 

The  difference  between  the  Virginia  and  Jersey  plans  in 
one  drawing  the  powers  from  the  people  and  the  other  from 
the  States  does  not  affect  the  powers.  Indeed,  in  two 
States  members  of  Congress  are  now  chosen  by  the  people. 

Here  Madison  discussed  the  weakness  of  the  Confed 
eration  in  points  of  conflict  in  national  sovereignty: 
treaties;  Indian  wars;  interstate  agreements  exclusive 
of  other  members  of  the  Confederation ;  ineffectiveness 
of  the  Federal  court  to  enforce  its  decisions,  etc.  These 


1789]  The  Constitution  211 

he  said  were  not  cured  by  the  Jersey  plan,  which  was 
also  defective  in  the  provisions  for  a  ratification  by  the 
States  of  the  new  powers  with  which  it  proposed  to  vest 
the  Federal  government.  He  severely  criticized  the 
plan  for  its  inadequate  judicial  provisions,  and  for  its 
neglect  to  prevent  mischief  arising  from  the  infringe 
ment  of  rights  of  individuals  by  the  States,  such  as 
issuing  paper  money  and  instituting  modes  for  dis 
charging  debts,  which  acts  were  in  violation  of  the  con 
tract  with  the  creditors. 

It  is  evident,  if  we  do  not  radically  depart  from  a  Federal 
plan  [as  opposed  to  national],  we  shall  share  the  fate  of 
ancient  and  modern  confederacies,  which,  like  the  American 
Confederation  were  dependent  for  their  power,  in  the  last 
resort,  in  war  and  peace,  on  force.  [Here  Madison  dis 
played  his  extensive  knowledge  of  political  history  by  citing 
the  destruction  of  the  Amphictyonic  council  by  Philip  of 
Macedon,  the  weakness  of  the  Dutch  States,  etc.] 

How,  he  inquired,  is  military  coercion  to  enforce  govern 
ment?  True,  a  smaller  State  may  be  coerced  into  submis 
sion,  but  what  of  a  larger  State?  In  the  event  of  failure  to 
form  a  union  of  the  States  the  greater  commonwealths  would 
retain  the  advantage  over  the  rest  which  their  size  assures 
them.  That  they  should  forego  this  natural  predominance 
is  too  much  to  expect. 

At  the  conclusion  of  Madison's  remarks  the  Conven 
tion,  in  committee  of  the  whole,  reported  the  Jersey 
plan  as  inadmissible. 

On  June  19,  George  Mason  [Va.]  spoke  in  favor  of 
adoption  of  the  Virginia  plan.  He  answered  the  objec 
tions  of  incompetency  of  the  Convention  to  institute  it, 
and  the  want  of  practicability  to  carry  it  into  effect. 
On  the  first  point  he  cited  the  precedent  of  the  Treaty 


212  American  Debate  [1787- 

of  Paris  with  Great  Britain  which  ended  the  Revolution 
ary  war. 

This  was  negotiated  by  persons  who  exceeded  their 
authorization,  and  yet  it  met  with  the  approbation  of  the 
people  who  sent  them.  So  in  the  present  case  the  people, 
whose  principles  are  fixed  to  no  object  except  that  a  repub 
lican  government  is  best,  and  that  the  Legislature  ought  to 
consist  of  two  branches,  would  accept  a  frame  of  govern 
ment  which  guaranteed  these  features. 

As  to  the  impracticability  of  the  plan,  he  admitted  that 
disputes  and  jealousies  might  arise  under  it  between  the 
general  and  the  State  governments,  but  claimed  that  this 
was  a  necessary  possibility  in  any  plan  producing  mutual 
safety.  Patriotism  and  good  sense  could  be  relied  upon  to 
minimize  the  danger. 

James  Wilson  [Pa.]  enforced  the  final  point  of  Mr. 
Mason  by  citing  the  voluntary  relinquishment  of  their 
interests  made  by  the  larger  to  the  smaller  States 
during  the  Revolution. 

The  great  States  well  knew  that  the  loss  of  a  limb  would 
be  fatal  to  the  Confederation;  through  tenderness  they 
sacrificed  their  dearest  rights  to  preserve  the  whole.  Now, 
however,  that  the  danger  was  over,  the  time  had  come  for 
justice  to  be  done  to  their  claims. 

William  Samuel  Johnson  [Ct.],  in  behalf  of  the  small 
States,  proposed  that  their  rights  be  recognized  and 
guaranteed  by  equality  of  State  representation  in  the 
Senate,  which  was  now  generally  agreed  upon  as  the 
name  of  the  second  branch  of  the  national  legislature. 
Mr.  Wilson  offered  for  Judge  Johnson's  consideration 
the  need  of  protection  of  the  Federal  government 
against  the  selfish  interest  of  the  State  governments. 


1789]  The  Constitution  213 

Where  there  was  conflict  between  the  parties,  he  thought 
that  the  States  ought  to  yield.  However,  such  a  clash 
might  be  obviated  by  a  clear  designation  and  delimitation 
of  Federal  and  State  powers.  Certainly  the  general  govern 
ment,  composed  as  it  would  be  of  citizens  of  the  several 
States,  would  have  no  ambitious  views  to  encroach  upon 
State  rights. 

Mr.  Madison,  in  this  connection,  pertinently  chal 
lenged  the  advocates  of  State  rights  to  show  that 
the  States  had  ever  encroached  on  the  rights  of  muni 
cipalities  within  their  borders. 

If  the  national  government  should  usurp  the  rights  of  a 
State,  it  would  certainly  be  for  the  good  of  the  whole,  and 
so  no  mischief  could  arise. 

The  resolutions  of  the  Plan  of  the  Committee  of  the 
Whole,  providing  for  a  threefold  division  of  the  govern 
ment,  two  branches  of  the  legislature,  and  the  com 
position  of  the  popular  branch  (see  page  201),  were 
adopted.  The  resolution  relating  to  the  Senate  was 
then  taken  up  for  discussion. 

Charles  Pinckney  [S.  C.],  evidently  with  Hamil 
ton's  plan  in  mind,  opposed  taking  the  British  House  of 
Lords  as  a  model  in  any  respect.  He  gave  an  admir 
able  historical  sketch  of  the  origin  of  British  institutions, 
including  the  nobility,  in  the  German  forests,  and  of  the 
transplanting  and  developing  of  the  system  in  England. 
Fortunately  for  America  the  nobility  was  not  brought 
thither. 

I  lay  it  down  as  a  settled  principle  that  equality  of  condi 
tion  is  a  leading  axiom  in  our  government.  If  necessary, 
checks  should  be  instituted  lest  ranks  in  society  should  arise, 
but  the  occasion  would  hardly  be  likely  to  occur,  since  our 


214  American  Debate  [1787- 

leading  pursuits  of  industry  and  commerce  were  not  con 
ducive  to  such  distinctions. 

Can  we  copy  from  Greece  and  Rome?  We  have  no 
patricians,  opposed  in  interest  to  the  common  people,  and 
monopolizing  the  offices.  We  are  a  body  of  free  yeomanry. 
Our  situation  is  unexampled;  and  it  is  in  our  power  to 
secure  civil  and  religious  liberty.  Let  us  not  pretend  to 
rival  Europe  in  grandeur.  If  we  have  any  distinctions,  it  is 
between  (i)  professional  men,  (2)  commercial  men,  (3)  the 
landed  interest.  The  last  is  the  governing  power,  and  the 
two  other  classes  must  be  dependent  upon  it,  but  in  mutual 
interest,  the  three  thus  composing  essentially  one  order  of 
society. 

We  should  not,  however,  have  a  consolidated  government. 
Such  a  project  was  contemplated  by  Great  Britain,  but  was 
found  impracticable,  because  of  the  extent  and  diversity 
of  the  country. x 

State  governments  must  therefore  remain,  if  you  mean 
to  prevent  confusion.  Upon  these  considerations  I  am  led 
to  form  the  second  legislative  branch  differently  from  the 
committee's  plan.  [Here  Mr.  Pinckney  read  the  provisions 
of  his  plan  (see  page  199)  relative  to  the  Senate,  and 
moved  their  adoption.] 

Mr.  Wilson  opposed  the  appointment  of  Senators 
by  the  State  legislatures  as  an  improper  exercise  of 
power. 

American  citizenship  is  divided  in  its  nature :  each  man  is 
at  the  same  time  a  citizen  of  the  nation  and  of  his  State. 
In  which  character  does  he  act  in  forming  a  national  govern 
ment  ?  Plainly  in  the  former.  If  the  powers  of  peace  and 

1  In  1686  Sir  Edmund  Andros  was  appointed  Governor  of  the  Do 
minion  of  New  England  (including  New  York),  the  colonial  governments 
having  been  abolished.  His  arbitrary  rule  came  to  an  end  on  the  accession 
of  William  and  Mary  in  1689,  when  he  was  imprisoned  by  the  outraged 
citizens  of  Boston,  and  the  colonial  charters  were  restored. 


1789]  The  Constitution  215 

war,  treaties,  coinage,  and  regulation  of  commerce  are  to 
lie  in  the  general  government,  as  unanimously  agreed  upon, 
why  not  governmental  functions  of  a  national  character? 
Equality  of  representation  cannot  be  established  if  one 
branch  of  the  legislature  is  elected  by  the  State  legislatures. 
If  Senators  are  elected  by  the  people,  and  if  the  national 
government  does  not  act  upon  State  prejudices,  in  time 
State  distinctions  will  be  lost.  For  the  sake  of  the  future 
millions  of  Americans,  this  is  an  end  to  be  desired.  I  move 
that  the  second  branch  of  the  national  legislature  be  elected 
by  electors  chosen  by  the  people  of  the  United  States. 

Oliver  Ellsworth  [Ct.]  supported  the  committee's 
recommendation . 

State  legislators  are  more  competent  to  make  a  judicious 
choice  of  Senators  than  the  people  at  large,  whose  choice  is 
pervaded  by  instability.  In  the  second  branch  of  the 
national  legislature  wisdom  and  firmness  are  desired  in 
order  to  check  the  inconsiderate  proceedings  of  the  popular 
branch. 

State  governments  ought  not  to  be  detached  from  the 
general  government.  Without  a  standing  army  the  general 
government  must  rest  for  support  upon  the  pillars  of  the 
State  governments.  The  people  are  strongly  attached  to 
their  State  governments,  and  will  oppose  any  plan  de 
structive  of  their  constitutional  rights  as  embodied  therein. 

The  Convention  voted  that  Senators  be  elected  by 
the  State  legislatures.  The  question  of  the  term  of 
service  of  Senators  was  then  discussed. 

George  Read  [Del.]  proposed  a  term  of  nine  years  in 
triennial  rotation. 

Mr.  Madison  spoke  in  favor  of  the  point  raised  by 
Mr.  Charles  Pinckney  that  the  landed  interest  ought 
largely  to  form  the  Senate  body. 


216  American  Debate  [1787- 

With  the  growth  of  manufacture  and  commerce  this 
interest  may  become  overbalanced,  and  hence  it  should  now 
be  made  secure,  as  the  basis  of  civic  and  social  order.  In 
England  at  the  present  time,  if  elections  were  open  to  all 
classes  of  people,  an  agrarian  law  would  undoubtedly  be 
passed.  The  American  Senate  as  at  first  constituted  will 
naturally  be  composed  of  landed  proprietors.  Whatever 
conduces  to  the  permanence  and  stability  of  this  composi 
tion  is  therefore  desirable.  An  extended  term  of  office, 
on  this  account,  should  be  agreed  upon. 

Elbridge  Gerry  [Mass.],  a  politician  of  the  practical 
school,  advised  not  too  long  a  term,  because  this  pro 
vision  would  endanger  the  ratification  of  the  Constitu 
tion  by  the  people,  who  feared  any  tendency  toward 
monarchy,  such  as  extended  continuous  service  of 
public  officers. 

It  would  give  an  opportunity  to  the  demagogues,  who 
were  the  great  pests  of  our  government,  having  occasioned 
most  of  our  distresses.  He  proposed  a  term  of  four  years, 
which  could  be  lengthened  by  a  future  constitutional  con 
vention. 

Mr.  Wilson  thought  that  the  provision  of  triennial 
rotation  would  obviate  this  objection. 

The  stability  obtained  by  long  service  in  the  legislative 
branch  dealing  with  foreign  affairs  would  strengthen  the 
confidence  of  other  nations  in  our  government.  Distrust 
of  the  ability  of  our  present  Federal  government  to  fulfill 
its  obligations  is  the  reason  why  the  British  Government 
has  refused  to  form  a  commercial  treaty  with  us. 

A  term  of  six  years,  with  triennial  rotation,  was 
agreed  upon,  and  also  that  each  House  should  have  the 
right  of  originating  bills.  The  resolution  of  the  com- 


1789]  The  Constitution  217 

mittee's  report  on  the  powers  of  the  national  legislature 
was  passed  over.  The  first  clause  of  the  resolution 
relating  to  suffrage  (representation)  in  the  Senate  was 
then  discussed. 

Luther  Martin  [Md.]  spoke  for  three  hours  in  desul 
tory  fashion,  as  was  his  habit,  in  opposition  to  the 
report. 

This,  he  said,  was  a  medley  of  a  confederated  and  na 
tional  government  without  precedent.  He  desired  that  the 
Federal  principle  be  conserved.  A  general  government 
may  operate  on  individuals  in  cases  of  general  concern,  and 
still  be  Federal.  The  States  will  take  care  of  their  internal 
police  and  local  concerns.  The  general  government  has  no 
interest  but  the  protection  of  the  whole. 

Individuals,  by  natural  right,  are  equal.  This  equality 
is  in  some  degree  lost  when  they  become  members  of  a 
society.  But  these  societies  in  turn,  if  they  are  democratic, 
are  equal  in  rights  with  respect  to  similar  bodies.  Con 
federation  of  such  States  is  for  the  good  of  the  whole,  and 
their  individual  rights  must  be  safeguarded  without  con 
sideration  of  size  or  importance.  Vattel,  Locke,  and  other 
authorities  on  public  law,  agree  upon  this  point. 

With  representation  in  the  Federal  legislature  based  on 
population,  four  large  States  could  control  the  Union. 

Here  Mr.  Martin  departed  from  the  immediate  ques 
tion,  and  applied  the  statement  to  the  proposed  choice 
of  the  executive  by  the  legislature. 

The  four  States  could  control  the  appointment  of  the 
President,  and,  through  him,  of  all  Federal  officers,  civil, 
military,  and  judicial.  Even  his  veto  could  not  be  over 
ridden  by  the  votes  of  the  remaining  States.  This  would 
destroy  equality  among  the  constituent  parts  of  the  Union. 

If  there  exist  no  separate  interests  among  the  States  there 


218  American  Debate  [1787- 

is  no  danger  in  granting  them  equality  of  votes;  and,  if  there 
be  danger,  the  smaller  States  cannot  yield  this  equality. 
In  forming  the  present  Confederation,  it  was  the  smaller 
States  alone  which  yielded  rights.  Not  partial  representa 
tion  is  the  cause  of  our  government's  weakness,  but  want  of 
power.  This  can  be  given  to  the  Federal  government  with 
out  impairing  State  equality.  The  latter  must  be  preserved. 
I  would  not  trust  a  government  on  the  reported  plan  for  all 
the  slaves  of  Carolina  or  horses  and  oxen  of  Massachusetts. 

On  Federal  grounds  it  is  claimed  that  a  minority  will 
govern  a  majority;  but  on  the  Virginia  plan  a  majority  will 
tax  a  minority.  In  a  Federal  government  a  majority  must 
and  ought  to  tax.  But  this  should  be  a  numerical  majority 
of  the  States,  not  of  the  people  within  the  States.  Why 
should  our  plan  regard  the  rights  of  the  people  ?  These  are 
already  protected  by  their  State  governments,  concerning 
which  there  is  no  complaint. 

Representation  controls  taxation — not  according  to  the 
quantum  of  property,  but  of  freedom.  Representatives  of  a 
State  will  not  forget  State  interests.  No  mode  of  election 
will  obviate  this.  Government  on  the  Virginia  plan  will 
not,  therefore,  be  just  or  equal,  unless  State  interests  are 
abolished.  If  this  cannot  be  done  you  must  go  back  to 
principles  purely  Federal. 

The  leagues  of  ancient  States,  which  have  been  cited  as 
warning  examples,  owed  their  failure,  not  to  consideration 
for  the  equal  rights  of  the  smaller  members,  but  to  the 
violation  of  these  by  the  larger  constituents.  The  end  of 
the  Amphictyonic  council  was  due  to  Lacedaemon,  a  large 
State,  attempting  to  exclude  three  lesser  States  from  equal 
rights.  If  the  principle  of  equal  representation  is  an  evil 
one,  why  do  we  not  hear  complaints  against  it  from  the 
Dutch  and  Swiss  confederacies? 

I  would  rather  confederate  with  any  single  State  than 
submit  to  the  Virginia  plan.  But  we  are  already  confeder 
ated,  and  no  power  on  earth  can  dissolve  the  union  but  by 
the  consent  of  all  the  contracting  powers. 


1789]  The  Constitution  219 

John  Lansing,  Jr.  [N.  Y.]  moved  that  the  word  "not" 
be  stricken  out  of  the  resolution. 
Mr.  Madison  opposed  this  motion : 

The  gentleman  from  Maryland  has  erroneously  considered 
confederacies  and  treaties  to  be  on  the  same  basis.  In  the 
one,  the  powers  act  collectively;  in  the  other  individually. 
When  independent  sovereignties  form  a  league,  surely  the 
larger  States  may  with  justice  refuse  to  give  the  smaller 
equal  legislative  powers  in  the  new  association. 

Nor  is  the  gentleman  correct  in  stating  that  the  powers  of 
the  present  Congress  apply  only  to  States,  and  not  individ 
uals,  for  in  some  cases  they  affect  the  property,  and  in 
event  of  war,  the  lives  of  citizens. 

The  gentleman  speaks  of  combinations  of  the  larger 
States  against  the  smaller.  What  are  the  inducements  for 
this  ?  The  States  referred  to  (Massachusetts,  Pennsylvania, 
and  Virginia)  are  remote  from  each  other,  and  diverse  in 
interests,  customs,  religion,  etc.  Do  the  larger  counties  in 
a  State  combine  with  each  other?  Are  they  not,  rather, 
rivals?  Has  not  contention  chiefly  been  between  larger 
States,  such  as  Sparta  and  Athens,  Rome  and  Carthage, 
Great  Britain  and  France?  Do  the  greater  provinces  in 
Holland  endanger  the  liberties  of  the  lesser  ?  Let  me  remark 
that  the  weaker  you  make  your  confederation,  the  greater 
is  the  danger  to  the  smaller  States.  They  can  be  protected 
only  by  a  strong  Federal  government.  Those  gentlemen 
who  oppose  the  Virginia  plan  do  not  sufficiently  analyze 
the  subject. 

The  sarcastic  note  of  Madison's  remarks,  imputing 
ignorance  of  law  and  history  to  a  man  claiming  to  be 
conversant  with  these  subjects,  was  caught  by  other 
speakers  on  his  side,  and  it  awakened  resentment 
in  their  opponents.  Accordingly  the  venerated  Dr. 
Franklin  rose,  and,  after  reading  some  remarks  on  the 
question,  said: 


220  American  Debate  [1787- 

We  shall,  I  am  afraid,  be  disgraced  through  little  party 
views.  The  subject  of  our  deliberations  is  a  great  and  diffi 
cult  one.  Neither  ancient  nor  modern  history  can  give  us 
light  on  it.  But  as  a  sparrow  does  not  fall  without  God's 
permission,  can  we  suppose  that  governments  can  be 
erected  without  His  will?  I  move  that  we  have  prayers 
every  morning. 

This  timely  and  gracious  advice  of  the  aged  diplomat 
produced  its  desired  effect,  and  the  debate  resumed  the 
high  impersonal  tone  of  its  early  stage. 

Mr.  Wilson  denied  the  contention  of  the  State-rights 
men  that  the  States  were  sovereign,  saying  that  in 
point  of  fact  they  were  merely  political  societies. 

The  States  never  possessed  the  essential  rights  of  sover 
eignty.  These  were  always  vested  in  Congress.  Voting 
as  States  in  Congress  is  no  evidence  of  State  sovereignty. 
Maryland  voted  by  counties.  Did  this  make  the  counties 
sovereign?  The  States,  at  present,  are  only  great  corpora 
tions,  having  the  power  of  making  by-laws,  and  these  are 
effectual  only  if  they  are  not  contradictory  to  the  general 
Confederation.  The  States  ought  to  be  placed  under  the 
control  of  the  general  government — at  least  as  much  so  as 
they  formerly  were  under  the  British  King  and  Parliament. 
If  the  power  is  not  immediately  derived  from  the  people, 
in  proportion  to  their  numbers,  we  may  make  a  paper  con 
federacy,  but  that  will  be  all. 

Mr.  Hamilton  enforced  Mr.  Wilson's  position  by 
showing  that  strict  representation  was  not  observed 
in  any  of  the  State  governments. 

In  New  York,  for  example,  the  Senate  was  chosen  by 
persons  of  certain  qualifications  [such  as  possession  of 
property  to  the  value  of  $500.]  to  the  exclusion  of  others. 


1789]  The  Constitution  221 

The  rights  of  individuals  ought  not  to  be  sacrificed  to  the 
rights  of  artificial  beings  called  States. 

Mr.  Lansing's  motion  was  lost.  The  original  clause 
was  put  to  vote  and  failed  to  carry.  Judge  Ellsworth 
moved  to  amend  it  by  giving  equal  votes  to  the  States. 
He  supported  the  amendment,  saying : 

The  large  States,  though  they  may  not  have  a  common 
interest  for  combination,  yet  they  may  be  partially  at 
tached  to  each  other  for  mutual  support  and  advancement.1 

Mr.  Madison  spoke  of  the  necessity  of  adopting  right 
measures  in  the  beginning,  since  it  was  difficult  to  secure 
constitutional  amendments.  He  declared  that  the  fear 
of  the  large  States  by  the  small  was  visionary. 

The  real  danger  is  the  great  southern  and  northern  inter 
ests  of  the  continent  being  opposed  to  such  other.  Look 
to  the  votes  in  Congress,  and  most  of  them  stand  divided 
by  the  geography  of  the  country,  not  according  to  the  size 
of  the  States. 

Mr.  Wilson  replied  to  the  statement  of  State-rights 
men  that,  if  the  amendment  were  not  agreed  to,  a 
separation  of  the  country  to  the  north  of  Pennsylvania 
might  occur. 

This  staggers  me  neither  in  my  sentiments  nor  in  my 
duty.  The  opposition  to  the  Virginia  plan  is  as  22  to  90 
in  the  general  scale — less  than  a  fourth  part  of  the  Union. 
Shall  three  fourths  surrender  their  rights  for  the  support 
of  that  artificial  being  called  State  interest  ?  Let  the  mi- 

1  This  is  a  suggestion  of  the  practice  which  later  developed  in  Con 
gress  under  the  name  of  "log-rolling,"  where  representatives  of  con 
stituencies  of  diverse  interests  bargain  to  vote  together  when  these  are 
under  consideration. 


222  American  Debate 

nority  separate  the  Union  by  refusing  the  Virginia  plan — we 
shall  stand  all  the  stronger  supported  by  better  principles. 

If  the  amendment  is  adopted  seven  States,  related  to  the 
other  six  in  population  as  24  to  66,  will  control  the  govern 
ment.  For  whom  do  we  form  the  Constitution?  For  men, 
or  for  imaginary  beings  called  States — a  mere  metaphysical 
distinction. 

As  has  been  said,  the  large  States  may  be  expected  to 
contend  against  each  other  rather  than  to  combine  against 
the  small  States.  Will  they  not  also  separately  court  the 
interests  of  the  small  States,  to  counteract  the  views  of  a 
favorite  rival  ? 

The  State-rights  advocates  scent  aristocracy  in  the 
Virginia  plan.  On  the  contrary  the  claims  of  the  small 
States  lead  directly  toward  aristocracy,  which  is  the  govern 
ment  of  the  few  over  the  many. 

Mr.  Wilson  proposed  one  Senator  for  each  one  hun 
dred  thousand  of  population,  every  State  to  have  at 
least  one  representative  in  the  chamber. 

Dr.  Franklin  made  the  clever  suggestion  that  repre 
sentation  of  States  in  the  Senate  should  be  equal,  and 
that  the  vote  should  be  taken  on  this  basis  on  all  acts 
of  sovereignty,  etc.,  but  that  in  revenue  legislation 
the  Senators  should  vote  in  ratio  to  the  sums  their 
States  respectively  contribute. 

Such  a  rule,  said  he,  exists  in  the  merchant  marine  for 
determining  a  ship's  destination,  etc.,  where  the  vessel  is 
owned  by  several  persons  in  varying  degrees. 

Rufus  King  [Mass.],  also  contributed  an  original 
point  of  view  to  the  subject. 

Let  the  Constitution  we  are  forming  be  considered  as  a 
commission  under  which  the  general  government  shall  act; 
as  such  it  will  be  the  guardian  of  the  State  rights.  The 


1789]  The  Constitution  223 

smaller  States  do  not  need  to  fear  the  tyranny  of  the  larger 
ones.  The  rights  of  Scotland  are  secure,  although  she  has 
a  small  representation  in  Parliament. 

The  Convention  was  evidently  at  a  deadlock  on  the 
issue  of  State  vs.  popular  representation  in  the  Senate, 
and  General  Pinckney,  therefore,  moved  for  a  select 
committee  to  take  into  consideration  representation  in 
both  branches  of  legislation.  Mr.  Martin  remarked 
that  a  compromise  was  evidently  designed.  This  he 
opposed : 

You  must  give  each  State  equal  suffrage,  or  our  business 
is  at  an  end. 

Roger  Sherman  [Ct.],  a  conservative  member  of  the 
State-rights  party,  upheld  the  motion: 

It  seems  that  we  have  got  to  a  point  where  we  cannot 
move  one  way  or  the  other.  Such  a  committee  is  necessary 
to  set  us  right. 

Gouverneur  Morris  [Pa.]  expressed  his  opinion  that 
the  two  branches  of  legislation  should  be  radically 
different  in  composition. 

The  first  branch,  originating  from  the  people,  will  ever  be 
subject  to  precipitancy,  changeability,  and  excess.  This  can 
be  checked  only  by  ability  and  virtue  in  the  second.  There 
fore  the  Senate  should  be  composed  of  men  of  great  and 
established  property — aristocracy;  men  who,  from  pride,  will 
support  consistency  and  permanency.  And,  to  make  them 
independent,  they  should  be  chosen  for  life. 

The  admitted  tendency  of  a  body  so  constituted  is 
toward  tyranny.  This  will  be  checked  by  the  democratic 
branch. 


224  American  Debate  [1787- 

Mr.  Morris  decried  the  suggestion  that  Senators  be 
excluded  from  holding  office  in  the  general  government. 

This  is  a  dangerous  expedient.  They  ought  to  have  every 
inducement  to  be  interested  in  your  government.  The 
wealthy  will  ever  demand  honor  and  profit.  Prevent 
them  by  positive  institutions  in  this  pursuit,  and  they  will 
gain  their  ends  by  left-handed  methods. 

It  is  of  little  consequence  whether  or  not  States  be  equally 
represented  in  this  body.  The  general  government,  if  it  is 
to  exist,  must  have  a  large  share  in  the  division  of  ' '  loaves 
and  fishes. "  This  will  reduce  the  denationalizing  influence 
of  the  States.  Appointment  for  life  would  further  this 
process — indeed,  make  the  Senators  wholly  independent 
of  the  State  governments. 

Such  a  Senate  is  required  if  it  is  to  control  our  foreign 
relations.  We  are  a  commercial  people,  and  as  such  will  be 
obliged  to  engage  in  European  politics.  For  this  we  need 
a  strong,  responsible  national  government. 

Report  of  Committee  on  Compromise.  The  Conven 
tion  appointed  a  committee  to  report  upon  those  pro 
visions  relating  to  the  legislature  which  had  not  been 
agreed  upon.  The  committee  met  on  July  3,  and  Mr. 
Gerry  was  chosen  chairman.  Robert  Yates  [N.  Y.], 
expressed  his  firm  attachment  to  the  national  govern 
ment  on  Federal  principles.  His  remarks  led  Dr. 
Franklin  to  make  a  motion,  which,  after  some  modifica 
tion,  was  agreed  to,  and  was  made  the  basis  of  the  com 
mittee's  report. 

This  was  that,  in  the  first  branch  of  the  legislature 
(House  of  Representatives),  each  State  be  allowed  one 
member  for  every  forty  thousand  inhabitants1  of  the  de- 

1  At  the  suggestion  of  General  Washington,  chairman,  this  number 
was  reduced  to  thirty  thousand. 


1789]  The  Constitution  225 

scription  already  agreed  upon,  one  member  being  allowed 
each  State  with  less  than  that  number. 

That  money  bills  shall  originate  in  this  House,  and  be  not 
amended  by  the  second  House. 

That  in  the  second  branch  (Senate)  each  State  shall  have 
an  equal  vote. 

On  July  5,  the  report  was  read  to  the  Convention. 
Mr.  Madison,  the  manager  of  the  interests  of  the  large 
States,  expressed  displeasure  with  it. 

He  saw  nothing  of  concession.  Originating  money  bills 
in  the  House  of  Representatives  was  not  of  this  nature,  for 
if  seven  States  in  the  Senate  (a  majority)  should  want  a 
particular  money  bill,  their  interest  in  the  House  could 
bring  it  forward. 

The  Senate,  small  in  number,  and  well  connected,  will 
ever  prevail.  The  power  of  regulating  trade,  treaties,  etc., 
is  of  more  importance  than  raising  money,  and  no  provision 
for  these  is  made  in  the  report.  Two  thirds  of  the  people 
are  to  please  the  remaining  third  by  sacrificing  their  essen 
tial  rights.  Only  when  we  satisfy  the  majority  have  we 
nothing  to  fear;  otherwise,  everything. 

On  the  same  day,  seeing  that  the  party  of  the  large 
States  interest  appeared  to  remain  firm  in  its  contention, 
Judge  Yates  and  Mr.  Lansing  left  the  Convention. 
Later  they  wrote  a  letter  to  Governor  George  Clinton 
of  their  State  justifying  their  secession  on  grounds  which 
have  already  been  presented.  The  Convention  adopted 
the  report,  and  then  spent  the  remainder  of  the  session 
in  completing  the  Constitution  upon  the  principles 
already  adopted. 

The  only  other  subject  in  the  Convention  on  which 
the  country  was  divided  was  Slavery,  which  will  be 
discussed  in  Volume  II. 


226  American  Debate  [1787- 

On  July  23  the  Virginia  plan  as  amended  was  re 
ferred  to  a  "committee  of  detail"  to  draft  the  Con 
stitution  for  final  approval.  The  plans  of  Paterson  and 
Pinckney  were  also  referred  to  them  for  suggestions. 
The  committee  gave  in  its  report  on  August  6.  This 
was  debated  until  September  8,  and  then  adopted.  A 
committee  "to  revise  the  style  of  and  arrange  the 
articles"  was  appointed.  On  the  I2th  it  reported  its 
draft,  and  the  draft  of  a  letter  to  Congress  urging  the 
adoption  of  the  Constitution.  On  the  I5th,  the  Con 
stitution  was  formally  adopted  by  unanimous  vote,  and 
was  ordered  to  be  transmitted  to  Congress  to  be  sub 
mitted  by  that  body  to  conventions  assembled  in  each 
State  for  its  ratification  or  rejection. 

Ratification  of  the  Constitution.  On  September  20, 
1787,  Congress,  then  sitting  in  the  City  Hall,  New  York, 
took  up  the  Constitution  and  debated  it  for  eight  days. 
The  chief  objection  to  the  proposed  government  was 
that  it  consolidated  too  much  power  in  the  general 
government,  thus  endangering  the  independence  of  the 
States.  Finally,  on  the  28th,  Congress  ordered  the 
Constitution  to  be  submitted  to  the  States  in  the  man 
ner  designated  by  the  Convention.  In  the  course  of  the 
next  three  years  the  State  conventions  were  held  on  the 
call  of  the  legislatures. 

It  was  exceedingly  doubtful  from  the  beginning  that 
the  Constitution  would  be  ratified  by  the  number  of 
States  (nine)  requisite  for  its  adoption.  Many  attacks 
upon  it  were  made  in  the  newspapers.  To  these  John 
Dickinson  replied  in  his  Letters  of  Fabius,  written  in  the 
homely  style  of  his  Farmer  s  Letters  in  order  to  influ 
ence  the  common  people,  and  Alexander  Hamilton, 
James  Madison,  and  John  Jay  in  articles  appealing  to 
the  more  highly  educated  class  published  over  the 


1789]  The  Constitution  227 

common  signature  of  "Publius, "  and  under  the  title  of 
The  Federalist.1 

The  Federalist  Papers  were  eighty-five  in  number, 
of  which  Hamilton  wrote  fifty-one,  Madison  twenty- 
nine,  and  Jay  five.  Hamilton  discussed  the  Constitu 
tion  in  general  and  finance  in  particular;  Madison  the 
relation  between  State  and  Federal  powers;  and  Jay 
foreign  relations.  Hamilton  originated  the  idea  of  the 
series,  with  the  special  purpose  of  favorably  influencing 
the  New  York  convention,  which  was  strongly  inclined 
to  reject  the  Constitution.  Not  only  was  this  accom 
plished,  but  the  Papers  exerted  a  deep  influence  in  all 
the  States,  and  remain  to-day  the  classic  commentary 
on  the  Constitution,  being  recognized  as  such  by  the 
courts. 2 

The  reader  must  be  warned,  however,  that  they  par 
take  of  the  nature  of  a  "  brief  for  the  plaintiff, "  and  as 
such  do  not  always  express  the  convictions  of  the  au 
thors.  This  is  particularly  true  of  the  contributions  by 
Hamilton,  who,  as  we  have  seen,  opposed  the  Virginia 
plan,  which  formed  the  basis  of  the  Constitution,  and 
the  Jersey  plan,  which  was  used  for  modifications. 
However,  he  much  preferred  the  Constitution,  marking 
as  it  did  an  advance  toward  his  ideal  of  a  strong  govern 
ment,  to  the  feeble  Articles  of  Confederation.  The 
fact  that  he  outwardly  supported  provisions  in  it  which 
he  inwardly  reprobated  was  strikingly  shown  in  1793 
when,  over  the  signature  of  "Pacificus,"  he  defended 
President  Washington's  proclamation  of  neutrality  in 

1  Digests  of  these  famous  defenses  are  found  in  Great  Debates  in 
American  History,  vol.  i.,  chap.  xv. 

3  Many  editions  of  The  Federalist  have  been  published,  the  most 
fully  edited  and  indexed  being  that  by  Paul  Leicester  Ford  (1898). 
For  one  in  text-book  form,  that  by  Henry  Cabot  Lodge  (1888),  the  pres 
ent  Senator  from  Massachusetts,  is  recommended. 


228  American  Debate  [1787- 

the  Franco-British  war  which  virtually  construed  the 
French- American  Alliance  of  1778  as  no  longer  binding, 
although  no  consultation  was  had  on  the  subject  with 
the  Senate,  a  body  which  Hamilton  clearly  stated  in  The 
Federalist  must  always  jointly  act  with  the  President 
on  treaties.  This  conflict  Madison,  who  replied  to 
"Pacificus"  over  the  signature  of  "Helvidius,"  pointed 
out  with  great  shrewdness.  From  the  characteristic 
style  of  the  papers  in  defense  of  the  treaty  it  was  a 
" secret  of  Punch"  who  was  its  author,  and  Madison 
took  advantage  of  Hamilton's  unwise  resort  to  the 
prevalent  practice  of  anonymity  by  asking,  with  pre 
tended  indignation:  who  was  this  upstart  "Pacificus" 
to  oppose  the  principles  of  the  Constitution  as  laid 
down  by  its  great  expounder,  Alexander  Hamilton? 

The  Constitution  was  ratified  unanimously  by  Del 
aware,  New  Jersey,  and  Georgia,  and  by  large  majorities 
in  Pennsylvania,  Connecticut,  Maryland,  and  South 
Carolina.  For  some  time  it  was  doubtful  whether  the 
remaining  States  would  assent  to  it  without  amend 
ments  of  the  nature  of  a  "Bill  of  Rights. " 

The  Massachusetts  Convention,  held  in  January, 
1788,  was  won  over  in  favor  of  the  Constitution  largely 
by  powerful  arguments  eloquently  presented  by  Fisher 
Ames. 

Sketch  of  Ames.  Ames,  graduated  from  Harvard  at 
the  age  of  sixteen,  owing  to  his  youth  and  straitened 
circumstances,  was  obliged  to  spend  some  years  in 
study  and  teaching  before  entering  upon  his  chosen 
profession  of  law.  He  was  a  diligent  reader  of  the 
ancient  and  modern  poets,  and  of  the  Bible,  thereby 
acquiring  a  beauty  and  fervor  of  style  which  was  shortly 
to  win  him  reputation  as  the  most  eloquent  orator  of  his 
generation.  He  entered  into  the  practice  of  law  in 


1789]  The  Constitution  229 

his  native  village  of  Dedham  in  1781.  Awaiting  the 
advent  of  clients  he  devoted  his  time  to  writing  political 
essays  in  the  Boston  papers  under  various  pen-names, 
which,  upon  their  authorship  becoming  known,  brought 
him  State-wide  fame  and  a  gratifying  increase  of  clients. 
In  1788  he  was  elected  to  the  Massachusetts  Assembly 
where  his  eloquence  was  so  highly  rated  that  he  was 
elected  to  the  convention  to  pass  upon  the  national 
Constitution.  On  the  institution  of  the  new  govern 
ment  to  which  he  had  so  effectively  contributed,  he  was 
elected  to  Congress,  where,  for  eight  years,  he  was 
recognized  as  the  ablest  and  most  eloquent  of  the 
Federalist  Representatives.  His  speech  in  1896  in 
favor  of  the  execution  of  Jay's  Treaty  with  Great 
Britain  was  his  masterpiece  of  eloquent  argument,  and, 
until  the  advent  of  Daniel  Webster,  was  recognized 
as  the  greatest  American  oration  delivered  since  the 
Declaration  of  Independence.  Forced  by  ill-health  to 
withdraw  from  public  life,  he  retired  to  his  farm,  and 
took  up  the  pen,  writing  in  1798  Laocoon  and  other 
essays  intended  to  rouse  the  Federalists  to  more  strenu 
ous  opposition  to  the  aggressions  of  France.  He  de 
clined  the  offer  of  the  presidency  of  Harvard  in  1804, 
and  in  1808  he  died,  a  staunch  Federalist  to  the  last  in 
spite  of  the  reaction  against  that  party. 

Says  Henry  Hardwicke,  in  his  History  of  Oratory  and 
Orators  (1896): 

"  In  person  Mr.  Ames  was  above  middle  stature  and  well 
formed.  His  countenance  was  very  handsome,  and  his 
eye  blue  in  color,  and  expressive.  His  features  were  not 
strongly  marked.  .  .  .  His  expression  was  usually  mild 
and  complacent  when  in  debate,  and,  if  he  meant  to  be 
severe,  it  was  seen  in  good-natured  sarcasm  rather  than 
in  acrimonious  words. " 


230  American  Debate  11787- 

E.  L.  Magoon,  in  his  Orators  of  the  American  Revo 
lution  (1848),  felicitously  called  Ames  "an  orator  of 
genius  and  elaborate  beauty";  and  Charles  Caldwell, 
in  his  Autobiography  (1853-55),  declared  that  he  was 
"decidedly  one  of  the  most  splendid  rhetoricians  of  the 
age."  Dr.  Joseph  Priestley,  who  had  heard  all  the 
British  orators  of  his  time,  the  two  Pitts,  and  Burke, 
and  Fox,  declared  to  Mr.  Caldwell  that  the  speech  of 
Ames  on  Jay's  Treaty  was  "the  most  bewitching  piece 
of  parliamentary  oratory  he  had  ever  listened  to. " 

Francis  H.  Underwood,  in  his  A  Handbook  of 
English  Literature,  records  that  on  one  occasion  Con 
gress  adjourned  on  motion  of  Ames's  chief  opponent, 
who  urged  that  the  members  ought  not  to  be  called  upon 
to  vote  while  under  the  spell  of  Ames's  extraordinary 
eloquence. 

However,  say  Julian  Hawthorne  and  Leonard 
Lemmon,  in  their  American  Literature  (1891): 

"With  all  his  beauty  and  earnestness,  Ames  lacked  the 
massive  individuality,  the  overwhelming  torrent  of  feeling, 
the  towering  strength  that  should  be  within  the  scope  of 
the  greatest  statesmen." 

Typical  of  Ames's  eloquence  are  these  passages  from 
his  speech  in  favor  of  ratification  of  the  Constitution 
delivered  at  the  Massachusetts  Convention.  He  is 
talking  of  the  danger  of  foreign  aggression. 

"If  we  reject  the  Constitution  ...  we  girdle  the  tree; 
its  leaves  will  wither,  its  branches  drop  off,  and  the  moulder 
ing  trunk  will  be  torn  down  by  the  tempest.  .  .  .  We 
approve  of  our  own  form  of  government,  and  seem  to  think 
ourselves  in  safety  under  its  protection.  We  talk  as  if  there 
was  no  danger  in  deciding  wrong.  But  when  the  inundation 


1789]  The  Constitution  231 

comes,  shall  we  stand  on  dry  land?  The  State  government 
is  a  beautiful  structure.  It  is  situated,  however,  on  the 
naked  beach.  The  Union  is  the  dyke  to  fence  out  the  flood. 
That  dyke  is  broken  and  decayed,  and,  if  we  do  not  repair 
it,  when  the  next  spring  tide  comes  we  shall  be  buried  in 
one  common  destruction." 

Even  though  the  delegates  were  permitted  to  vote 
under  the  spell  of  Ames's  eloquence,  ratification  would 
hardly  have  carried  had  not  the  leader  of  the  State 
rights  party,  the  venerated  Samuel  Adams,  declared 
himself  in  favor  of  the  Constitution,  provided  that  the 
Bill  of  Rights  amendments  were  recommended  for 
adoption.  This  recommendation  was  made  when  the 
Constitution  was  ratified  on  February  6,  1788,  by  a 
small  majority. 

In  the  Convention  of  Virginia,  which  met  in  June, 
1788,  all  the  talented  men  of  that  "  Mother  of  States 
men"  were  arranged  in  almost  equal  ranks  against 
each  other.  Patrick  Henry,  George  Mason,  William 
Grayson,  and  James  Monroe,  Anti-Federalists,  op 
posed  Edmund  Pendleton,  Edmund  Randolph,  James 
Madison,  John  Marshall,  and  George  Wythe,  the 
Federalists. 

The  debates  in  the  Convention  are  among  the  most 
brilliant  in  American  forensic  history,  but,  as  the  main 
arguments  were  those  already  urged  in  the  Constitu 
tional  Convention,  they  must  be  excluded  from  the 
present  work. T 

Because  it  presents  a  new  phase  of  the  fundamental 
issue,  the  invasion  of  State  rights  by  the  Constitution, 
a  forensic  duel  between  the  foremost  orator  of  the  older 

1  A  digest  of  the  debates  is  given  in  Great  Debates  in  American  History, 
vol.  i.,  page  366. 


232  American  Debate  [1787- 

day  and  a  young  lawyer  who  was  to  become  the  greatest 
American  jurist  demands  presentation.  The  contest 
ants  were  Patrick  Henry  and  John  Marshall. 

Sketch  of  Marshall.  John  Marshall  received  an 
excellent  education  from  private  tutors,  and  at  the  age 
of  eighteen  had  begun  the  study  of  law,  when  the  out 
break  of  the  Revolution  called  him  to  the  field  by  the 
side  of  his  father,  who  was  major  of  the  company,  John 
being  lieutenant.  The  young  officer  distinguished 
himself  by  his  coolness  and  leadership  on  critical 
occasions,  and  on  account  of  his  calm  judgment  was 
frequently  selected  to  settle  disputes  between  his  fellow 
officers,  and,  indeed,  served  as  deputy  judge-advocate. 
Promoted  to  captain  in  1779  he  was  detailed  to  com 
mand  new  troops  to  be  raised  in  Virginia.  Awaiting 
the  action  of  the  legislature,  he  seized  the  opportunity 
to  study  law  under  George  Wythe  in  the  College  of 
William  and  Mary,  receiving  admission  to  the  bar  in 
1780.  After  military  service  for  another  year,  the 
surrender  of  Cornwallis  enabled  him  to  begin  law  prac 
tice,  and  he  rapidly  rose  to  the  front  rank  of  his  pro 
fession.  From  1782  to  1788  he  served  intermittently 
in  both  branches  of  the  State  Legislature,  and  in  the 
latter  year  was  elected  to  the  Virginian  Convention  as  a 
pronounced  Federalist.  It  was  largely  due  to  his  argu 
ments  and  Madison's  that  the  Convention  ratified  the 
Constitution. 

After  the  inauguration  of  the  new  government  Mar 
shall  was  recognized  as  a  foremost  supporter  of  Wash 
ington's  administration.  Nevertheless  on  the  great 
trial  which  brought  him  national  fame  as  a  lawyer,  the 
case  of  Ware  vs.  Hilton,  where  there  was  conflict 
between  the  United  States  and  the  Virginia  govern 
ments  over  the  payment  of  British  debts  contracted 


1789]  The  Constitution  233 

before  the  war,  he  defended  the  State  rights  side. 
Although  his  old  teacher,  now  Chancellor  Wythe, 
decided  against  him,  Marshall's  argument  was  univer 
sally  admired  in  the  profession.  His  subsequent  career 
as  envoy  to  France,  and  (after  service  for  one  session  in 
the  House  of  Representatives,  and  for  a  year  as  Secre 
tary  of  State  under  President  John  Adams)  as  Chief- 
Justice  of  the  Supreme  Court  from  1801  to  his  death  in 
1835,  is  familiar  to  all  readers  of  United  States  diploma 
tic  and  legal  history.  He  presided  at  the  trial  of  Aaron 
Burr  for  treason  with  rigid  impartiality  in  the  face 
of  adverse  public  opinion  against  the  accused.  He 
wrote  from  records  supplied  by  his  subject's  family  the 
first  authoritative  Life  of  Washington,  in  which,  how 
ever,  judicial  poise  was  somewhat  disturbed  by  partisan 
purpose. 

William  Wirt,  in  The  Letters  of  a  British  Spy  (1803), 
describes  Justice  Marshall  as  in  personal  appearance 
and  demeanor  "as  far  removed  from  Lord  Chesterfield 
as  any  other  gentleman  on  earth,"  applying  to  him 
such  terms  as  tall,  meager,  loose- jointed,  with  head  dis 
proportionately  small  and  a  swarthy  countenance,  lit, 
however,  with  great  good  humor,  and  dominated  by 
black  eyes  of  an  "  irradiating  spirit  which  proclaims  the 
imperial  powers  of  the  mind  .  .  .  enthroned  within." 

Of  Marshall's  intellectual  character  George  Shars- 
wood  writes  in  his  Professional  Ethics  (1854) : 

"As  a  judge  the  Old  World  may  be  challenged  to  produce 
his  superior.  His  style  is  a  model — simple  and  masculine; 
his  reasoning  direct,  cogent,  demonstrative,  advancing  with 
a  giant's  pace  and  power,  and  yet  withal  so  easy  evidently 
to  him  as  to  show  clearly  a  mind  in  the  constant  habit  of 
such  efforts. " 


234  American  Debate  [1787- 

Of  Marshall's  services  to  the  Constitution  Senator 
Henry  Cabot  Lodge  writes : 

"That  which  Hamilton  in  the  bitterness  of  defeat  had 
called  'a  frail  and  worthless  fabric,'  Marshall  converted 
into  a  mighty  instrument  of  government.  The  Constitu 
tion,  which  began  as  an  agreement  between  conflicting 
States,  Marshall,  continuing  the  work  of  Washington  and 
Hamilton,  transformed  into  a  charter  of  national  life. 
When  his  life  closed,  his  work  was  done — a  nation  had  been 
made.  Before  he  died  he  heard  this  great  fact  declared 
with  unrivalled  eloquence  by  Webster.  It  was  reserved 
to  another  generation  to  put  Marshall's  work  to  the  last 
and  awful  test  of  war,  and  to  behold  it  come  forth  from  that 
ordeal  triumphant  and  supreme." 

The  question  between  Marshall  and  Henry  in  the 
Virginia  Convention  was  the  proposed  jurisdiction  in 
the  Constitution  of  the  Supreme  Court  in  controversies 
between  a  State  and  a  foreign  government — an  issue 
similar  to  that  in  which  Marshall  was  later  to  defend 
the  State  rights  side — the  case  of  the  British  war 
debts. 

Henry  opposed  this  jurisdiction : 

Would  the  foreign  government  be  bound  by  the  decision  ? 
And  would  not  the  State  be  barred  from  its  claim  if  the 
court  declared  it  unjust?  The  exclusion  of  trial  by  jury 
in  such  cases  would  destroy  the  rights  of  the  people  of  the 
State.  And  if  there  were  a  jury  trial,  it  would  be  held  in 
the  proposed  Federal  District,  where  juries  would  be  apt  to 
be  mere  tools  of  parties,  especially  since  the  right  of  chal 
lenge  is  not  secured  in  the  Constitution. 

Marshall  answered  by  saying  that,  as  the  previous 
consent  of  both  parties  was  necessary  in  bringing  the 


1789]  The  Constitution  235 

case  before  the  Court,  each  would  be  bound  in  honor 
as  well  as  in  law  to  accept  the  decision  of  the  tribunal. 
Accordingly  the  Court  would  be  a  means  of  preventing 
disputes,  instead  of  aggravating  them,  between  the 
States  and  foreign  nations. 

Marshall  denied  that  the  Constitution  in  the  cases 
referred  to  excluded  trial  by  jury.  Where  facts  were 
in  dispute,  the  Court  would  necessarily  employ  a  jury 
to  ascertain  them. 

But,  says  the  honorable  gentleman,  the  juries  in  the  ten 
miles  square  [of  the  proposed  Federal  District]  will  be  mere 
tools  of  parties,  with  which  he  would  not  trust  his  person 
or  his  property — which,  he  says,  he  would  rather  leave  to 
the  Court.  Will  no  man  stay  in  the  District  but  tools  and 
officers  of  the  government?  Are  there  none  but  officers 
and  tools  of  the  government  of  Virginia  in  Richmond  ? 

It  is  acknowledged  by  the  gentleman  that  the  judiciary 
is  secure  in  England.  What  makes  it  so  ?  Is  it  the  British 
constitution?  No,  for  that  Parliament  can  alter  in  any 
part.  Yet  Parliament  sacredly  preserves  the  independence 
of  the  courts.  Will  the  United  States  government  be  less 
honest  than  the  British? 

But  it  seems  the  right  of  challenging  juries  is  not  secured 
in  this  Constitution.  Is  this  done  in  our  own  [Virginia] 
constitution?  This  privilege  is  founded  on  English  law. 
If  we  are  secure  in  Virginia  without  mentioning  it  in  our 
constitution,  why  should  not  the  same  security  be  found 
in  the  Federal  Court? 

A  majority  of  the  Convention  were  in  favor  of  ma 
terial  amendments  to  the  Constitution  in  the  nature  of 
a  "Bill  of  Rights,"  and,  after  twenty  days'  debate,  the 
issue  finally  came  upon  whether  the  Constitution  should 
be  adopted  before  or  after  such  amendments  were  made. 

Chancellor  Wythe  moved  that  the  Constitution  be 


236  American  Debate  1*787- 

ratified,  with  a  preamble  declaring  that  the  powers 
granted  were  from  the  people,  and  that  every  power 
not  granted  remained  with  them.  Among  essential 
rights  specifically  mentioned  as  reserved  to  the  people 
were  liberty  of  speech  and  conscience.  It  was  further 
declared  that  ratification  ought  not  be  delayed  to  the 
jeopardy  of  the  country,  and  that  the  new  government 
should  be  trusted  to  make  the  desired  amendments. 

The  urgency  of  ratification  was  denied  by  William 
Grayson,  who  shared  the  leadership  of  the  State  rights 
party  with  Patrick  Henry. 

Sketch  of  Grayson.  This  statesman  was  a  graduate 
of  Oxford,  England,  and  had  studied  law  in  the  Temple, 
London.  Returning  to  America  he  entered  into  prac 
tice  at  Dumfries,  Maryland.  In  1776  he  was  appointed 
aide  on  General  Washington's  staff,  and  shortly  after 
wards  was  made  colonel  of  a  Virginia  regiment.  He 
distinguished  himself  at  the  battle  of  Monmouth  in 
1778.  He  was  one  of  the  commission  to  treat  with 
Sir  William  Howe  respecting  prisoners,  and  served  on 
the  Board  of  War  in  1780-81.  He  was  a  member  of 
the  Congress  of  the  Confederation  in  1784-87,  and,  on 
adoption  of  the  Constitution,  he  was  chosen  as  one  of 
the  Virginia  Senators,  Richard  Henry  Lee  being  the 
other.  He  died  within  one  year  after  the  election,  and 
therefore  does  not  occupy  the  place  in  American  his 
tory  which  his  great  political  talents,  fully  recognized 
by  the  people  of  Virginia  in  honoring  him  above  all  the 
many  great  men  of  that  State  except  Lee,  had  prepared 
him  to  take. 

Mr.  Grayson  urged  that  the  three  remaining  important 
States,  Virginia,  New  York,  and  North  Carolina,  which  had 
not  yet  passed  upon  the  Constitution,  should  stand  together 


1789]  The  Constitution  237 

in  insisting  on  its  amendment  before  ratification.  These 
States,  separating  the  country  into  three  isolated  parts, 
would  render  formation  of  the  new  government  by  the  other 
States  impracticable.  A  coalition  of  the  three  would  be 
able  to  command  their  terms  for  entering  the  Union.  These 
would  not  be  dictatorial  in  a  partisan  sense.  We  wish  to 
remove  the  party  spirit,  but  secure  the  liberty  of  the  people. 
If  the  States  that  have  ratified  the  Constitution  should 
feel  aggrieved  at  our  blocking  their  expectation  of  an  early 
union,  they  will  be  ready  to  receive  us  with  open  arms  when 
ever  it  is  to  our  interest  to  join  them,  for  this  will  be  to  their 
interest  also.  We  are  too  important  commercially  to  be 
excluded.  Tobacco  will  always  make  our  peace  with  them. 
The  idea  of  subsequent  amendments  is  preposterous. 
The  little  States  will  not  agree  to  an  alteration,  having  won 
their  chief  contention — equal  representation  in  the  Senate. 

Madison  replied  to  Grayson  in  the  most  effective 
speech  of  his  long  career  of  public  service,  in  that  it 
carried  Wythe's  motion,  and  assured  the  formation  of 
the  new  government,  it  not  being  known  at  the  time 
that  New  Hampshire,  the  ninth  State  had  ratified  the 
Constitution  on  June  21.  He  appealed  to  the  noble, 
disinterested  patriotism  of  the  State  which  had  been 
foremost  in  cultivating  the  national  spirit  of  the 
country. 

Virginia  has  always  heretofore  spoken  the  language  of 
respect  to  the  other  States,  and  she  has  always  been  at 
tended  to.  Will  it  be  that  language  to  call  on  a  majority 
of  the  States  to  acknowledge  that  she  has  done  wrong? 
Is  it  the  language  of  confidence  to  say  that  we  do  not  believe 
that  amendments  for  the  preservation  of  the  common 
liberty  and  general  interest  will  be  consented  to  by  them? 
It  is  a  most  awful  thing  that  depends  on  our  decision — free, 
peaceable,  unanimous  union,  or  embittering  confusion  and 


238  American  Debate  [1787- 

disorder.  Forty  amendments  have  been  proposed  by  this 
convention.  Will  not  every  State  think  herself  entitled 
to  as  many?  Suppose  them  to  be  contradictory;  how  will 
the  States  agree?  Shall  the  great  labors  of  the  Constitu 
tional  Convention,  which  settled  the  main  disagreements, 
be  brought  to  nought? 

In  her  ratification  of  the  Constitution,  (on  June  25) 
Virginia  submitted  to  the  new  government  a  Bill  of 
Rights  of  twenty  articles,  the  main  ones  of  which  were 
adopted  as  the  first  ten  amendments  to  the  Constitution 
within  three  years  after  establishment  of  the  new 
government. 

The  New  York  Convention  met  at  Poughkeepsie 
on  June  19.  The  chief  subject  of  controversy  was  the 
proportion  of  representation  fixed  for  the  popular 
House.  Alexander  Hamilton  led  in  support  of  the 
Constitution,  and  Melanct[h]on  Smith  in  opposition. 

Sketch  of  Smith.  Smith  was  a  merchant  who  had 
lately  removed  from  Poughkeepsie  to  New  York  City, 
taking  with  him  his  influence  as  a  political  leader  in  the 
Anti-Federalist  party.  During  the  Revolution  he  had 
ably  served  his  State  and  the  country  in  both  the  pro 
vincial  and  national  congresses,  and  as  commissioner 
for  detecting  conspiracies  in  New  York.  He  was 
highly  esteemed  for  his  purity  and  sincerity  of  character. 
Chancellor  Kent  says  that  he  was  early  noted  ' '  for  his 
love  of  reading,  tenacious  memory,  powerful  intellect, 
and  for  metaphysical  and  logical  discussion,  of  which  he 
was  a  master." 

As  the  main  arguments  of  Hamilton  and  Smith  were 
necessarily  those  which  have  already  been  presented, 
they  need  not  be  here  reproduced.  Suffice  it  to  say 
that  Hamilton  made  the  most  powerful  speech  of  his 


1789]  The  Constitution  239 

life,  reducing  the  fear  of  "  consolidation  "  in  the  mind  of 
Smith  and  other  Anti-Federalists  to  the  point  where 
they  were  willing  to  ratify  the  Constitution  with  a 
recommendation  of  amendments  similar  to  those  of 
Virginia. J 

The  Anti-Federalists  were  further  moved  to  consent 
by  the  fact  that,  as  ten  States  had  ratified  the  Constitu 
tion,  the  alternative,  was  left  to  New  York  of  coming 
into  the  Union  or  remaining  out  of  it  as  a  separate 
sovereignty.  The  ratification  was  consummated  on 
July  26. 

The  ratifications  by  the  first  nine  States  being  laid 
before  Congress,  that  retiring  national  legislature,  on 
July  2,  1788,  referred  them  to  a  committee  to  prepare 
an  act  for  instituting  the  new  government.  It  re 
ported  on  July  14,  but,  on  account  of  a  division  as  to  the 
place  to  be  chosen  for  the  first  capital,  the  act  was  not 
passed  until  September  13.  It  fixed  the  time  of  the 
election  of  Presidential  electors  and  the  meeting  of  the 
Electoral  College  then  to  be  chosen,2  and  appointed 
New  York  as  the  place,  and  the  4th  of  March,  1789,  as 
the  time  of  the  inauguration  of  the  new  government. 3 

North  Carolina  and  Rhode  Island  were  admitted  into 
the  Union  upon  their  respective  ratifications  of  the 
Constitution  on  November  19,  1789,  and  May  29,  1790. 

1  William  Ordway  Partridge  selected  Hamilton  delivering  this  speech 
as  the  subject  of  his  statue  of  the  great  statesman  which  stands  in 
Columbia  University. 

2  The  College  elected  George  Washington  [Va.]  and  John  Adams 
[Mass.]  as  President  and  Vice-President  respectively. 

3  Owing  to  delay  in  assembling  quorums  of  the  two  Houses  of  Congress, 
the  inauguration  was  postponed  to  April  30,  1789. 


CHAPTER  IX 

FEDERALIST  VS.  REPUBLICAN 

I793-I80I 

New  Alinement  of  Parties  over  Increase  of  Executive  Power — Con 
troversy  between  Hamilton  and  Madison  over  Proclamation  of 
Neutrality  in  European  War — The  Sovereign  Acts  of  Citizen  Genet 
— Debate  on  Jay's  Treaty:  in  Favor,  Fisher  Ames  [Mass.],  William 
Murray  [Md.];  Opposed,  James  Madison  [Va.],  Albert  Gallatin 
[Pa.],  Edward  Livingston  [N.  Y.],  William  Giles  [Va.]— Sketches  of 
Murray,  Gallatin,  Livingston,  and  Giles — Debate  on  the  Breach 
with  France:  in  Favor  of  War  Preparations,  Harrison  Gray  Otis 
[Mass.],  Robert  G.  Harper  [S.  C.],  James  A.  Bayard,  Sr.  [Del.], 
Thomas  Pinckney  [S.  C.];  Opposed,  Mr.  Gallatin,  Mr.  Livingston, 
Mr.  Giles — Sketches  of  Otis,  Harper,  Bayard,  and  Pinckney — 
The  "X  Y  Z  Mission"— Treaty  with  France— Debate  on  the  Alien 
Laws:  in  Favor,  Samuel  Sewall  [Mass.],  John  Rutledge,  Jr.  [S.  C.], 
John  Allen  [Ct.],  Mr.  Bayard,  Mr.  Otis,  Mr.  Harper;  Opposed/Mr. 
Gallatin,  Mr.  Livingston — Sketches  of  Sewall,  Rutledge,  and  Allen 
— Debate  on  the  Sedition  Law:  in  Favor,  Mr.  Harper,  Mr.  Otis; 
Opposed,  John  Nicholas  [Va.],  Mr.  Gallatin,  Mr.  Livingston — 
Sketch  of  Nicholas — The  Kentucky  and  Virginia  Resolutions — 
Election  of  President  Jefferson — The  "Midnight  Judges" — The 
Know  Nothing  Movement — Debate  in  the  House:  in  Favor, 
Nathaniel  P.  Banks  [Mass.];  Opposed,  William  T.  S.  Barry  [Miss.] 
— Sketches  of  Debaters. 

THE  advocates  of  State  rights,  though  contending 
for  an  undemocratic  principle  in  representation, 
made  themselves,  as  we  have  seen,  the  special  cham 
pions  of  civil  and  religious  freedom  in  the  successful 
contest  to  add  to  the  Constitution  a  Bill  of  Rights 

240 


[1793-1801]     Federalist  vs.  Republican  241 

guaranteeing  this  liberty.  Accordingly,  the  Anti- 
Federalist1  party  gradually  gathered  to  itself  the  men 
of  democratic  tendency,  such  as  Madison  among  the 
Federalists. x  In  like  fashion  the  ranks  of  the  Federal 
ists  were  augmented  by  persons  of  aristocratic  leanings 
in  the  early  State  rights  party.  Owing  to  the  fact  that 
men  of  higher  education  and  greater  property  interests 
had  come  into  executive  and  judicial  office,  and  formed 
an  overwhelming  majority  in  the  Senate,  which  was  the 
predominant  legislative  chamber  in  honor  at  home,  and 
in  dignity  and  respect  in  the  eyes  of  foreign  nations 
(as  recognized  in  the  term  "upper  house"  supplanting 
that  of  "second  house"  which  had  been  invariably 
applied  to  it  in  the  Constitutional  Convention),  the 
Federalist  party  became  the  Administration  party;  and 
the  Anti-Federalist  the  Opposition,  which  was  con 
centrated  in  the  House  of  Representatives. 

Increase  of  Power  of  the  President.  The  main  issue 
between  these  parties  was  the  constitutional  question 
of  relative  executive  and  legislative  powers.  The 
Administration,  desiring  to  be  as  effective  as  possible 
in  establishing  a  truly  national  government,  naturally 
exercised  to  the  full  all  its  functions,  including  the 
implied  powers  which,  by  a  broad  construction  of  the 
Constitution,  it  might  claim  under  that  instrument. 
To  these  increased  executive  powers,  or  "prerogatives" 
as  the  Anti-Federalists  styled  them,  the  House  of 
Representatives,  which,  unlike  the  Senate,  had  no  asso 
ciation  with  the  President  in  legislative  and  executive 

1  As  Madison  claimed,  these  names  were  misnomers,  and  should  have 
been  exchanged.  ."Federalist"  logically  applied  to  the  State  rights 
advocates  who  desired  to  maintain  the  federal  principle  of  the  old 
government,  and  "Anti-Federalist, "  or,  in  positive  form,  "  Nationalist, " 
to  the  champions  of  the  new  and  more  consolidated  government. 
id 


242  American  Debate  [1793- 

acts  such  as  treaty-making  and  appointments  to  judicial 
and  executive  offices,  were  through  self-interest  opposed. 

The  Administration  of  President  Washington  at 
first  held  the  scales  equal  between  the  two  principles  of 
government.  Gradually  the  balances  inclined  toward 
the  Federalist  or  aristocratic  principle,  chiefly  t  rough 
the  influence  of  Alexander  Hamilton,  Secretary  of  the 
Treasury,  whose  efficiency  in  finance,  for  the  conduct  of 
which  he  demanded  the  extreme  of  power  which  could 
be  granted  by  a  liberal  construction  of  the  Constitution, 
strengthened  the  President's  own  predilection  for  a 
strong,  national  government,  and  made  him  disposed  to 
succumb  to  the  persistent  urge  of  the  resolute  Secretary 
broadly  to  construe  the  new  charter  of  the  Republic  as 
permitting  greater  liberty  in  the  exercise  of  his  own 
functions.  Thus  in  1793  the  President  issued  instruc 
tions  as  to  the  course  to  be  pursued  by  American  citizens 
in  the  European  war  occasioned  by  the  execution  of 
Louis  XVI.  by  the  French  Republicans,  which  pro 
clamation,  while  it  omitted  the  word,  commanded 
neutrality,  and  so  in  effect  abrogated  the  French  Alli 
ance  of  1778.  Jefferson,  as  head  of  the  State  depart 
ment,  expected  to  have  the  drafting  of  the  instrument, 
which  he  intended  to  make  an  evasion  but  not  denial 
of  our  obligations  under  the  Alliance,  and  at  the  same 
time  a  covert  bid  for  recognition  of  our  commercial 
rights  as  neutrals  by  either  or  both  of  the  warring  sides. 
President  Washington,  however,  apparently  under  the 
influence  of  Hamilton,  chose  for  the  task  Attorney- 
General  Edmund  Randolph,  who,  while  recognized  as 
belonging  to  Jefferson's  faction  in  the  Cabinet,  was 
more  amenable  than  its  head  to  the  Hamiltonian  views 
of  the  President. 

This  proclamation  presented  a  clear  issue  to  the 


i8oi]  Federalist  vs.  Republican  243 

unorganized  Opposition,  and  solidified  it  into  a  party. 
Since  Jefferson's  mouth  was  closed  by  his  enforced 
assent  to  the  proclamation,  Madison  became  spokesman 
of  the  anti-Administration  sentiment,  and,  as  has  been 
noted,  attacked  Hamilton  on  the  issue  that  the  Presi 
dent's  act  was  unconstitutional  in  that  it  construed  a 
treaty  without  advice  of  the  Senate.  x 

Madison  won  the  forensic  laurels  of  the  debate,  but 
the  practical  effect  of  the  proclamation  was  not  im 
paired,  and  it  has  remained  as  a  precedent  for  executive 
action  in  such  cases,  affording  a  fine  example  of  the 
manner  in  which  Hamilton  increased  the  prerogatives 
of  the  President  without  either  legislative  change  or 
judicial  interpretation  of  the  Constitution. 

The  Sovereign  Acts  of  Citizen  Genet. 2  By  the  great 
mass  of  the  Republicans  the  proclamation  of  neutrality 
was  opposed  for  sentimental  rather  than  constitutional 
reasons.  The  common  people  had  a  high  regard  for 
France  on  account  of  the  aid  she  had  rendered  us  in  the 
War  of  Independence,  and  they  heartily  wished  her 
success  in  what  she  claimed  and  they  accepted  was  a 
struggle  to  redeem  all  Europe  from  the  tyranny  of 
monarchical  and  aristocratic  rule.  For  a  time  this 
threatened  to  become  the  supreme  issue,  dividing  the 
country  into  the  pro-French,  and,  if  not  the  anti- 
French  or  pro-British,  at  least  the  neutral  party. 
Such  a  sad  injection  of  foreign  politics  into  domestic 
public  concerns,  embittering  otherwise  friendly  dis- 

1  See  page  227.     For  a  digest  of  the  newspaper  controversy  between 
Hamilton  ("Pacificus")  and  Madison  ("Helvidius")  see  Great  Debates 
in  American  History,  vol.  ii.,  chap.  i.   <*, 

2  The  controversy  over  these  acts  is  here  given  at  a  greater  length  than 
would  have  been  allotted  did  not  it  so  remarkably  parallel  in  many 
particulars  our  present  diplomatic  situation  in  respect  to  Germany  and 
Austria. 


244  American  Debate  (1793- 

agreements  on  constitutional  matters,  and  poisoning 
the  healthful  metabolism  of  our  national  development, 
was  happily  averted  by  the  outrageous  acts  of  the  min 
ister  whom  the  regicide  Republic  sent  over  to  enlist 
our  aid,  or,  failing  to  do  so,  to  commit  us  to  her  cause 
by  involving  us  in  infractions  of  the  comity  of  nations. 

Edmond  Charles  Edouard  Genet,  known  more 
briefly  by  the  democratic  appellation  upon  which  he 
insisted  as  Citizen  Genet,  was  a  young  enthusiast  to 
whose  mind  the  "rights  of  man"  as  interpreted  by  his 
fellow  revolutionists  appeared  as  a  sacred  kultur,  sup 
planting  by  virtue  of  its  inherent  superiority  all  ruling 
principles  even  in  foreign  countries,  like  our  own,  whose 
government  was  based  on  these  rights  differently 
viewed.  Thus,  when  he  entered  Charleston  harbor 
on  April  9,  1793,  his  ship  displayed  flags  inscribed  with 
such  mottoes  as  "Enemies  of  equality,  change  or 
tremble, "  and  "  We  are  armed  to  support  the  rights  of 
man, "  and  no  sooner  had  he  set  foot  on  American  soil 
than  he  began  to  perform  acts  forbidden  by  inter 
national  law  to  a  diplomat  accredited  to  a  sovereign 
government,  justifying  himself  by  saying  that  his  real 
credentials  were  to  the  American  people,  whom  he 
assumed  to  be  at  one  with  the  French  people  in  the 
cause  of  democracy  vs.  aristocracy.  He  commissioned 
American  privateers  to  prey  on  British  ships,  and  or 
ganized  American  volunteers  into  military  expeditions 
against  the  Spanish  possessions  in  Florida  and  Louisiana. 
Indeed,  so  contemptuous  was  he  of  his  accredited 
mission  to  the  Government  at  Philadelphia,  that  he 
remained  for  some  weeks  at  Charleston  engaged  in  this 
unlawful  work. 

Even  when  he  departed  for  the  national  capital  he 
delayed  his  journey  to  receive  ovations  from  the  com- 


i8oi]  Federalist  vs.  Republican  245 

munities  along  the  way,  and  to  address  the  people  thus 
assembled  upon  the  world-emancipating  mission  of  the 
European  and  American  republics.  When  he  arrived 
at  the  national  capital  he  was  welcomed  by  a  gathering 
of  citizens  enthusiastic  for  the  cause  of  France,  and 
a  banquet  was  tendered  him  at  which  the  guests  wore 
the  red  liberty  cap  of  the  French  revolutionists,  greeted 
each  other  by  the  levelling  title  of  "citizen,"  and  sang 
with  wild  abandon  the  "Marseillaise." 

On  May  18,  Genet  presented  his  credentials  to 
President  Washington,  and  was  received  as  the  repre 
sentative  of  the  French  Republic.  He  assured  the 
President  that  "on  account  of  the  remote  situation  of 
the  United  States,  and  other  circumstances,  France  did 
not  expect  that  they  should  become  a  party  in  the  war 
but  wished  to  see  them  preserve  their  prosperity  and 
happiness  in  peace."  At  the  same  time  he  handed 
Washington  a  declaration  of  the  French  National  Con 
vention  to  this  effect,  which  presented  the  inaction  of 
the  United  States  in  the  war  as  a  necessary  but  "un 
fortunate"  deprivation  of  the  Western  Republic  of  the 
high  privilege  of  taking  that  part  "in  this  glorious  regen 
eration  of  Europe"  which  our  "principles  and  past 
conduct"  implied  we  were  willing  to  assume. 

Notwithstanding  these  open  declarations  (which  had 
been  published  by  the  Convention  to  mislead  France's 
enemies,  and  reprinted  in  America  for  a  similar  effect 
upon  her  friends),  Genet  possessed  secret  instructions 
from  the  executive  council  of  the  French  government 
which,  when  later  he  was  charged  with  exceeding  his 
orders,  he  published  in  vindication  of  his  conduct. 

In  case  the  American  government,  influenced  by  "false 
representations"  of  the  weakness  of  the  French  republic, 


246  American  Debate  [1793- 

should  adopt  "a  timid  and  wavering  conduct"  in  the  nego 
tiations  which  Genet  was  instructed  to  open,  the  executive 
council  charged  him,  in  expectation  that  the  American 
government  would  finally  determine  to  make  a  common  cause 
with  France,  to  take  such  steps  as  were  required  "to  serve 
the  cause  of  liberty  and  the  freedom  of  the  people. " 

On  May  23  Genet  wrote  to  Thomas  Jefferson, 
Secretary  of  State,  a  letter  proposing  the  "family 
compact "  which  he  had  been  instructed  to  offer — 
commercial  and  political  union  of  the  two  nations  whose 
interests  were  so  commingled.  Accordingly  he  asked 
that  the  old  alliance  be  enlarged  and  more  fully  defined 
especially  in  the  matter  of  American  protection  of  the 
French  West  Indies — which  the  former  treaty  required 
only  in  case  of  a  defensive  war  by  France.  That  is, 
the  United  States  should  pull  French  chestnuts  out  of 
the  conflagration  into  which  the  European  republic  had 
thrown  the  world,  and,  while  we  were  licking  our  burnt 
paws,  the  new  mistress  of  the  seas,  secure  on  her  west 
ern  seat  in  the  Caribbean,  would  assimilate  at  her 
leisure  the  rich  spoils  of  the  vast  empire  watered  by  the 
Mississippi. 

President  Washington  discreetly  informed  the  impetu 
ous  French  minister  that  the  Senate,  which  would  not 
be  in  session  until  fall,  would  have  to  be  consulted  on 
the  subject  of  the  treaty.  Genet  then  tried  to  expedite 
another  of  his  missions,  which  was  to  secure  funds  for 
his  government.  He  asked  that  the  Revolutionary 
debt  to  France  be  paid  in  full  and  immediately,  promis 
ing,  as  an  inducement,  to  use  the  money  in  the  purchase 
of  American  products.  Alexander  Hamilton,  Secre 
tary  of  the  Treasury,  told  him  that  the  payments  on  the 
loan  would  be  made  promptly  when  they  fell  due,  but 
not  before,  as  the  issuance  of  government  bonds  to 


i8oi]  Federalist  vs.  Republican  247 

clear  off  the  debt  would  too  greatly  impair  the  public 
credit. 

There  was  some  murmuring  at  this  among  the  pro- 
French  party,  against  whose  opposition  Hamilton  had 
established  the  credit  by  arranging  for  the  payment  in 
full  and  in  due  time  of  all  the  creditors  of  the  United 
States,  including  the  speculators  who  had  bought  up  for 
a  song  the  Continental  currency. 

Thomas  Jefferson,  though  friendly  to  France,  now 
felt  impelled  by  the  duty  of  his  position  to  call  Genet's 
attention  to  the  acts  of  that  minister  in  Charleston  in 
violating  the  comity  of  nations  in  general  and  the 
hospitality  of  the  United  States  in  particular  by  com 
missioning  privateers  and  endeavoring  to  raise  troops 
against  Spain.  The  French  minister  frankly  admitted 
the  charges  against  him,  and  in  addition  confessed  that 
vessels  armed  and  commissioned  by  him  had  taken 
prizes  and  brought  them  into  American  ports,  but  he 
justified  his  actions  on  the  ground  that  the  vessels 
belonged  to  French  commercial  houses,  and  were  com 
manded  and  manned  by  French  citizens,  or  by  Ameri 
cans  "who,  at  the  moment  they  entered  the  service  of 
France,  in  order  to  defend  their  brothers  and  their 
friends,  knew  only  the  treaties  and  the  laws  of  the 
United  States,  no  article  of  which  imposes  on  them  the 
painful  injustice  of  abandoning  us  in  the  midst  of  the 
dangers  which  surround  us."  In  this  he  saw  no  en 
croachment  "on  the  sovereignty  of  the  American 
nation,  its  laws,  and  its  principles  of  government," 
since  those  on  board  the  vessels  had  "renounced  the 
immediate  protection  of  their  country  on  taking  part 
with  us." 

This  astounding  doctrine  was  sharply  opposed  by 
Jefferson. 


248  American  Debate  [1793- 

He  said  that  it  was  the  right  of  every  nation  "to  prohibit 
acts  of  sovereignty  from  being  exercised  by  any  other  within 
its  limits,  and  the  duty  of  a  neutral  nation  to  prohibit  such 
as  would  injure  one  of  the  warring  powers ;  that  the  granting 
military  commissions  within  the  United  States  by  any  other 
authority  than  their  own  was  an  infringement  on  their 
sovereignty,  and  particularly  so  when  granted  to  their  own 
citizens  to  lead  them  to  commit  acts  contrary  to  the  duties 
they  owed  their  own  country." 

Genet  refused  to  accept  this  self-evident  view  by 
declaring  that  it  operated  against  the  doctrine  of  na 
tural  right,  the  ties  which  united  America  and  France, 
and  even  the  principle  of  neutrality.  On  the  last  point 
he  said: 

"If  our  merchant  vessels  are  not  allowed  to  arm  them 
selves,  when  the  French  are  alone  resisting  the  league  of  all 
the  tyrants  against  the  liberty  of  the  people,  they  will  be 
exposed  to  inevitable  ruin  in  going  out  of  the  United  States, 
which  is  certainly  not  the  intention  of  the  people  of  America. 
...  A  true  neutrality  does  not  consist  in  a  cowardly 
abandonment  of  friends  in  the  moment  when  danger  men 
aces  them,  but  adhering  strictly,  if  they  can  do  no  better, 
to  the  obligations  they  have  contracted  with  them. " 

Jefferson  patiently  replied  at  length  to  these  remark 
able  contentions,  which  he  summed  up  in  the  reductio 
ad  absurdum  that  "all  the  citizens  may  be  at  war,  and 
yet  the  nation  at  peace. "  Dismissing  this  plain  reason 
ing  of  the  tolerant  Secretary  of  State  as  "diplomatic 
subtleties,"  and  discountenancing  the  apt  citations  by 
Jefferson  of  authorities  in  international  law  as  the 
"aphorisms  of  Vattel, "  etc.,  Genet  talked  wildly  of  the 
right  of  free  Americans  to  offer  their  services  to  France, 
and  of  France  to  accept  the  offer,  all  international  law 
to  the  contrary. 


i8oi[  Federalist  vs.  Republican  249 

"The  true  crime  would  be  to  enchain  the  courage  of  these 
good  citizens,  of  these  sincere  friends  of  the  best  of  causes. " 

Of  course  the  American  courts  took  charge  of  the 
prizes  brought  in  by  the  privateers  commissioned  by 
Genet.  At  this  he  complained  to  the  heavens,  saying 
that  French  consuls  alone  should  have  jurisdiction 
over  them.  Indeed,  these  consuls  attempted  wherever 
possible  to  determine  the  validity  of  the  prizes,  and 
actually  resisted  the  Federal  courts.  Thus  by  order 
of  the  French  consul  at  Boston  a  French  frigate  in  the 
harbor  took  one  such  prize  forcibly  from  the  custody 
of  the  United  States  marshal.  President  Washington 
at  once  revoked  the  exequatur  of  the  consul,  and  re 
stored  the  prize  to  its  proper  custodian.  Genet  him 
self  forbade  an  officer  to  serve  a  process  on  a  prize 
brought  into  New  York,  and  gave  orders  to  a  French 
squadron  in  the  harbor  to  protect  the  vessel  against 
any  one  who  should  attempt  to  take  her  into  custody. 

The  minister,  however,  was  quick  to  plead  interna 
tional  law  when  it  would  serve  the  French  cause.  Thus 
in  most  insulting  fashion  he  complained  to  Secretary 
Jefferson  that  French  property  was  taken  from  Ameri 
can  vessels  on  the  high  seas  by  the  British,  contrary 
to  the  law  of  nations  "  that  free  ships  make  free  goods, " 
and  that  this  was  pusillanimously  permitted  by  the 
American  government. 

"In  vain  does  the  desire  of  preserving  peace  tend  to  sacri 
fice  the  interests  of  France  to  that  of  the  moment;  in  vain 
does  the  thirst  of  riches  preponderate  over  honor;  all  this 
condescension  ends  in  nothing;  our  enemies  laugh  at  it; 
and  the  French,  too  confident,  are  punished  for  having 
believed  that  the  [American]  nation  had  a  flag,  that  they 
had  some  respect  for  their  laws,  some  conviction  of  their 


250  American  Debate  [1793- 

strength,  and  entertained  some  sentiment  of  dignity.  But, 
if  our  fellow  citizens  have  been  deceived,  if  you  are  not  in  a 
condition  to  maintain  the  sovereignty  of  your  people,  speak; 
we  have  guaranteed  it  when  slaves,  we  shall  be  able  to  render 
it  formidable,  having  become  freemen." 

The  Secretary  calmly  replied  to  this  outrageous  letter, 
confining  his  remarks  to  the  point  of  international  law 
raised  in  it. 

It  is  true,  he  said,  that  the  advanced  doctrine  of  free 
ships  making  free  goods  (adopted  in  the  "armed  neutrality" 
formed  by  neutral  nations  at  the  instigation  of  Catherine  II. 
of  Russia,  at  the  time  when  the  American  Revolution  had 
led  to  war  against  Great  Britain  by  France,  Spain,  and 
Holland)  had  been  incorporated  into  all  treaties  made  with 
foreign  nations  by  the  United  States,  but  with  Great  Britain, 
Portugal,  and  Austria  we  had  formed  no  treaties,  and  so 
"had  nothing  to  oppose  to  their  acting  according  to  the  law 
of  nations,  that  enemy's  goods  were  lawful  prize,  though 
found  in  the  bottom  of  a  friend." 

At  last  Genet  performed  an  act  which  exhausted  the 
patience  of  the  American  government.  Contrary  to 
the  remonstrances  of  President  Washington  and  Gover 
nor  Thomas  Mifflin  of  Pennsylvania,  the  French  min 
ister  ordered  the  arming  of  a  prize  called  the  Little 
Democrat  taken  from  the  British,  and,  abusing  the 
trust  of  Secretary  Jefferson,  who  had  assured  the 
President  that  Genet  would  not  disobey  his  injunction, 
he  connived  at  the  vessel  shipping  away  down  the  Dela 
ware  to  the  high  seas  to  devastate  the  shipping  of  the 
foes  of  France. 

Genet,  when  taken  to  task  for  his  action  by  Governor 
Mifflin,  impudently  said  that  he  would  appeal  from 
the  decision  of  President  Washington  to  the  American 


i8oi]  Federalist  vs.  Republican  251 

people.  In  this  attitude  he  was  encouraged  by  the  pro- 
French  press,  particularly  the  National  Gazette  of 
Philadelphia,  edited  by  Philip  Freneau,  a  protege  of 
Jefferson  who  had  given  him  a  clerkship  in  the  State 
Department  in  order  to  enable  him  to  exist  while  con 
ducting  the  anti-Hamilton  organ.  Freneau  wrote  at 
this  juncture: 

"  The  minister  of  France,  I  hope,  will  act  with  firmness  and 
spirit.  The  people  are  his  friends,  or  the  friends  of  France, 
and  he  will  have  nothing  to  apprehend ;  for  as  yet  the  people 
are  sovereign  of  the  United  States." 

Freneau  also  ascribed  the  "pusillanimous"  course 
of  the  Administration  to  British  influence.  Another 
pro-French  paper  in  Philadelphia,  the  General  Adver 
tiser,  even  charged  the  Administration  with  preparing 
"to  join  the  league  of  kings  against  France. "  The  so- 
called  "democratic  societies,"  formed  in  various  parts 
of  the  country  in  imitation  of  the  Jacobin  clubs  of  Paris, 
also  encouraged  Genet  to  oppose  the  Administration. 

On  August  16,  1793,  Gouverneur  Morris,  our  minister 
to  France,  was  instructed  by  Washington  to  communi 
cate  to  the  President  of  France  the  desire  of  the 
United  States  government  that  Genet  be  replaced  by 
a  more  conservative  minister,  and  to  report  the  conduct 
of  Genet  which  formed  the  reason  for  the  request. 
At  the  close  of  the  enumeration  of  all  the  attempts  of 
this  minister  to  act  as  co-sovereign  of  the  United  States, 
Washington  said  that  the  French  government  "would 
see  that  the  case  was  pressing;  that  it  was  impossible 
for  two  sovereign  and  independent  authorities  to  be 
going  on,  in  one  territory,  at  the  same  time  without 
collision."  He  also  intimated  that  in  self -protection 


252  American  Debate  U793- 

he  might  be  obliged  to  dismiss  the  unmanageable  envoy 
before  the  arrival  of  his  successor. 

"  If  our  citizens, "  he  said,  "had  not  already  been  shedding 
each  other's  blood,  it  was  not  owing  to  the  moderation  of 
Mr.  Genet,  but  to  the  forbearance  of  the  Government, "  and 
in  this  connection  he  cited  orders  of  the  minister  to  the 
crew  of  the  Little  Democrat,  some  of  them  Americans,  forcibly 
to  resist  arrest. 

A  copy  of  this  letter  was  sent  to  Genet,  who,  being 
occupied  with  organizing  an  expedition  from  the  Caro- 
linas  against  Florida,  and  one  from  Kentucky  against 
New  Orleans,  deferred  his  reply,  and  it  did  not  reach 
the  President  until  December. 

After  accusing  the  President  of  assuming  the  exercise  of 
powers  not  belonging  to  him  and  of  tampering  with  treaties, 
he  demanded  "as  an  act  of  justice,  which  the  American 
people,  which  the  French  people,  which  all  free  people  are 
interested  to  reclaim,  that  there  be  made  a  particular 
inquiry  in  the  next  session  of  Congress  of  the  motives  on 
which  the  head  of  the  executive  power  of  the  United  States 
has  taken  on  himself  to  demand  the  recall  of  a  public 
minister  whom  the  sovereign  people  of  the  United  States 
had  received  fraternally,  and  recognized  before  the  diplomatic 
forms  had  been  fulfilled,  with  respect  to  him,  at  Philadelphia." 

The  remainder  of  the  letter  was  filled  with  petty 
demagogic  accusations  against  Washington,  such  as 
that  he  decorated  his  parlor  with  "  medallions  of  Capet 
and  his  family." 

The  contents  of  this  abusive  letter  became  known, 
and,  when,  soon  after,  Genet  was  replaced  by  M.  Adet, 
a  reaction  set  in  against  him  even  among  the  extreme 
French  partisans;  indeed,  these  were  exceedingly  glad 


i8oi]  Federalist  vs.  Republican  253 

to  get  rid  of  one  who  had  strengthened  the  Administra 
tion  immeasurably  by  his  outrageous  charges  against 
it  and  his  vilification  in  general  of  the  United  States 
as  a  dollar- worshipping,  treaty-breaking  country. 

Genet  remained  in  the  United  States  and  became  a 
citizen  of  the  country.  He  married  a  daughter  of 
Governor  George  Clinton  of  New  York. 

Federalist  vs.  Republican.  The  attitude  toward 
France,  while  it  had  thus  been  reduced  from  the  position 
of  an  essential  issue  between  the  Administration  and  the 
Opposition,  remained  as  a  minor  discrimination,  and 
contributed  to  the  change  in  the  name  of  their  party 
by  the  Anti-Federalists  to  "Republican, "  the  favorite 
designation  of  themselves  by  the  French  revolutionists. 
The  Republican  leaders  were  Jefferson,  the  Secretary  of 
State,  and  Madison,  the  head  of  the  Opposition  in  the 
House  of  Representatives.  Hamilton  was  the  ac 
knowledged  leader  of  the  Federalists. 

If  American  history  were  written  in  terms  of  domi 
nant  instead  of  official  personality,  the  second  term  of 
Washington  would  be  called  the  "Administration  of 
Alexander  Hamilton,"  and,  if  partnership  in  party 
leadership  were  ever  recognized,  the  names  of  Jefferson 
and  Madison  would  be  hyphenated  as  a  single  personal 
influence,  for  these  statesmen  were  at  one  in  both 
opinion  and  program.  Madison,  by  virtue  of  his  freer 
position,  was  the  mouthpiece  of  the  association,  and 
yet,  because  of  his  modesty  and  loyalty,  he  never 
assumed  the  superior  position,  in  the  minds  of  the  people, 
which  the  occasion  afforded.  To  this  day  the  principles 
of  Jefferson-Madison  are  known  as  "Jeffersonian," 
although  from  the  beginning,  as  we  have  seen  in  the 
case  of  the  Virginia  Statute  of  Religious  Liberty  (page 
140)  Madison,  as  the  man  of  action  in  a  cause  to  which 


254  American  Debate  U793- 

he  had  devoted  equal  original  thought,  certainly  had 
the  greater  claim  to  preeminence  in  the  partnership. 

Jay's  Treaty.  The  differences  between  the  French 
and  American  governments  were  intensified  by  the 
commercial  treaty  negotiated  by  John  Jay  in  1794 
with  Great  Britain,  the  foe  of  France,  and  ratified  by 
the  President  and  the  Senate  on  August  14,  1795- 

In  the  spring  of  the  following  year  the  House  of 
Representatives,  which  was  largely  controlled  by  the 
Republican  spirit,  as  the  Senate  was  dominated  by 
Federalism,  claimed  the  right  to  nullify  the  Treaty  by 
refusing  to  appropriate  the  funds  necessary  to  make  it 
operative,  on  the  ground  that  Congress,  as  the  legis 
lative  body,  had,  save  for  the  Presidential  veto,  the 
exclusive  and  unlimited  power  of  the  purse.  The  Ad 
ministration  won  its  contention  that  the  Representa 
tives  had  no  voice  in  the  matter  of  treaties,  the  House 
finally  agreeing  to  the  Treaty  on  April  29,  1796,  when 
the  Speaker,  Frederick  A.  C.  Muhlenberg  [Pa.],  with 
much  hesitation,  cast  the  deciding  vote  for  making  the 
required  appropriation.1 

In  the  House  debates  on  the  Treaty  the  Federalist 
leaders  were  Fisher  Ames  [Mass.]  and  William  Vans 
Murray  [Md.],  and  the  Republican  leaders  were  James 
Madison  [Va.],  Albert  Gallatin  [Pa.],  Edward  Livings 
ton  [N.  Y.],  and  William  Branch  Giles  [Va.]. 

Sketch  of  Murray.  Murray  was  an  eminent  lawyer 
who  had  received  classical  and  legal  training  in  England. 
He  was  elected  to  Congress  as  a  Federalist,  and  served 
from  1791  to  1797,  when  he  was  appointed  minister 
to  the  Netherlands,  and  thereby  was  removed  from 
participation  in  the  culminating  struggle  of  1798-1800 

1  For  a  digest  of  the  debates  on  this  Treaty  see  Great  Debates  in 
American  History,  vol.  ii.,  chap.  ii. 


i8oi]  Federalist  vs.  Republican  255 

between  the  Federalist  and  Republican  parties.  While 
in  Congress  he  shone  in  debate  as  a  man  of  learning, 
eloquence,  and  parliamentary  finesse. 

When  the  controversy  with  France  reached  a  crucial 
point  in  1799,  Murray  was  appointed  one  of  the  envoys 
to  that  country  and  was  mainly  instrumental  in  nego 
tiating  the  treaty  which  averted  the  threatened  war. 
He  then  returned  to  his  post  at  The  Hague.  He  re 
turned  to  America  in  1801,  and  died  in  1803. 

He  was  the  author  of  an  able  legal  exposition  of 
The  Constitution  and  Laws  of  the  United  States. 

Sketch  of  Gallatin.  The  two  great  foreign-born 
American  statesmen,  Hamilton  and  Gallatin,  are 
strikingly  representative  of  opposing  theories  in  our 
politics,  and,  at  the  same  time,  are  exemplars  of  supreme 
executive  genius. 

Hamilton,  as  we  have  seen,  admired  the  semi-aris 
tocratic  government  of  Great  Britain,  where,  as  Tenny 
son  says, 

"Freedom  broadens  slowly  down 
From  precedent  to  precedent," 

and,  with  the  same  poet,  he  reprobated 

"the  schoolboy  heat, 
The  blind  hysterics  of  the  Celt." 

Gallatin,  a  native  of  French  Switzerland,  and  hence 
of  the  blood  to  which  the  English  Laureate  imputed 
this  emotional  impulse  and  intellectual  instability,  was 
a  democrat  to  whom  the  term  "ardent"  applies  as 
connoting  the  deep  glow  of  conviction  rather  than  the 
transitory  flame  of  infatuation. 

Like  another  great  Celt,  the  Marquis  de  La  Fayette, 


256  American  Debate  [1793- 

Gallatin  was  attracted  in  youth  to  America  in  order 
that,  to  use  the  phrase  of  the  Switzer,  he  might  "drink 
in  a  love  of  independence  in  the  freest  country  of  the 
universe."  Arriving  in  Boston  in  1780  in  the  midst  of 
the  Revolution,  he  wandered  to  Maine  where  he  engaged 
in  petty  trade.  A  threatened  invasion  of  the  British 
gave  him  a  welcome  opportunity  to  serve  his  new 
country  as  a  volunteer  soldier.  His  enterprise  failed, 
and  he  returned  to  Boston,  where  he  supported  himself 
by  giving  French  lessons  in  private  classes  and  at 
Harvard.  Receiving  financial  assistance  from  home, 
he  went  to  Philadelphia,  and  there  made  a  fortunate 
investment  in  lands  in  western  Virginia  which  en 
couraged  him  to  settle  himself  in  that  region  as  a 
storekeeper  and  land  agent.  Taking  up  his  residence  in 
Pennsylvania  near  the  Virginia  line,  he  interested  him 
self  in  politics,  and  soon  became  the  most  influential 
man  in  the  western  part  of  the  State,  as  a  result  of  which 
he  was  sent  to  the  United  States  Senate  in  1793. 
However,  after  a  short  service,  in  which  he  won  recogni 
tion  as  a  Republican  leader,  he  was  excluded  from  his 
seat  by  a  strict  party  vote  of  the  dominant  Federalists 
on  the  ground  of  a  technical  disqualification  in  the 
matter  of  length  of  his  American  citizenship.  In 
1794,  though  he  had  encouraged  resistance  to  the  excise 
on  spirits,  he  made  amends  by  using  his  great  influence 
among  the  people  of  the  region  to  desist  from  physical 
opposition  to  the  United  States  government.  His 
political  enemies  thereafter  made  much  of  his  contribu 
tory  part  in  "Whiskey  Insurrection,"  while  ignoring 
the  patriotic  service  he  had  performed  in  dissolving  it. 
He  entered  Congress  in  1795,  and  continued  a  member 
of  that  body  until  appointed  by  President  Jefferson  in 
1801  as  Secretary  of  the  Treasury,  a  position  for  which 


Federalist  vs.  Republican  257 

he  had  shown  himself  eminently  fitted  by  his  Congres 
sional  work  in  reforming  the  loose  budgetary  system  of 
the  government.  It  was  at  his  instigation  that  the 
Committee  on  Ways  and  Means  was  instituted.  Galla- 
tin's  Congressional  career  of  three  terms  is  concisely 
summed  up  by  Appleton's  Cyclopaedia  of  American 
Biography: 

11  In  the  first  term  he  asserted  his  power,  and  took  his 
place  in  the  councils  of  his  party.  In  the  second  he  became 
its  acknowledged  chief.  In  the  third  he  led  its  forces  to 
final  victory." 

During  this  period  he  published  two  pamphlets  on 
the  finances  of  the  United  States. 

In  the  first  ten  years  of  his  service  in  the  Treasury, 
Gallatin,  by  various  economies,  reduced  the  public 
debt  almost  one  half,  and  that  without  resorting  to 
new  taxes  or  increasing  the  rates  of  the  old.  In  view 
of  the  growth  of  the  country  in  population,  and  the 
decrease  of  its  commerce  due  to  the  embargoes  against 
Great  Britain  and  France,  this  is  an  even  greater 
achievement  than  Hamilton's  establishment  of  public 
credit  at  the  beginning  of  our  national  government, 
since  it  was  performed  in  undeniable  obedience  to  the 
Constitution,  while,  as  Gallatin  claimed,  Hamilton  had 
in  some  respects  exceeded  his  powers  under  that  instru 
ment.  Jefferson  as  President  also  showed  that  the 
most  literal  construction  of  the  Constitution  afforded 
a  statesman  of  executive  ability  opportunity  to  govern 
with  the  highest  efficiency.  He  sought  legislative  au 
thority  for  every  executive  act,  even  the  Louisiana 
Purchase,  which  he  acknowledged  would  be  uncon 
stitutional  unless  " cured"  by  Congress.  That  Con 
gress  refused  to  obey  his  earnest  request  for  instituting 

XV 


258  American  Debate  [1793- 

a  Constitutional  amendment  to  this  end,  on  the  ground 
that,  with  the  exception  of  a  few  malcontent  Federalists 
in  New  England,  the  whole  country  was  in  favor  of  the 
Purchase,  surely  affords  no  basis  for  the  indictment  of 
Jefferson  that  he  violated  his  own  theory  of  government. 

Gallatin  remained  Secretary  of  the  Treasury  when 
Madison  became  President,  resigning  his  position  in 
1813  in  order  to  go  with  James  A.  Bayard  to  St.  Peters 
burg  to  treat  for  peace  with  Great  Britain  under  the 
mediation  of  Czar  Alexander  I.  This  mission  failing, 
he  was  continued  as  commissioner,  and  subsequently 
was  chiefly  instrumental  in  securing,  on  Christmas  day, 
1814,  the  Treaty  of  Ghent,  which  ended  the  war. 
Appointed  minister  to  France,  he  aided  John  Quincy 
Adams,  the  minister  to  Great  Britain,  in  preparing  a 
commercial  treaty  with  that  country  in  1816;  and  was 
associated  with  William  Eustis,  minister  to  the  Nether 
lands,  in  negotiating  a  treaty  with  that  confederation 
in  1817. 

He  came  home  in  1823,  and,  after  refusing  the 
appointment  of  Secretary  of  the  Navy,  and  declining  to 
be  Democratic  candidate  for  Vice-President,  accepted, 
in  1826,  appointment  as  envoy-extraordinary  to  Great 
Britain,  with  which  country  he  negotiated  a  commercial 
treaty  that  obtained  compensation  for  American  citi 
zens  for  injuries  sustained  by  infractions  of  the  Treaty 
of  Ghent. 

Returning  to  America  he  settled  in  New  York  and 
engaged  in  banking.  He  wrote  numerous  books 
and  pamphlets  on  scientific,  financial,  and  political 
subjects,  a  book  of  the  last  character  being  in  opposition 
to  the  Mexican  War,  which  he  regarded  as  "the  only 
blot  upon  the  escutcheon  of  the  United  States."  This 
work  greatly  contributed  to  effecting  peace  with  our 


i8oi]  Federalist  vs.  Republican  259 

aggrieved  neighbor  republic.  He  prepared  argu 
ments  on  the  disputes  with  Great  Britain  over  the 
Maine  and  Oregon  boundaries.  He  was  interested  in 
education  and  science,  being  one  of  the  founders  of 
New  York  University,  and  the  first  president  of  the 
American  Ethnological  Society. 

John  Austin  Stevens  says,  in  Albert  Gallatin,  of 
The  American  Statesman  Series: 

"To  a  higher  degree  than  any  American,  native  or  for 
eign-born,  unless  Franklin,  with  whose  broad  nature  he  had 
many  traits  in  common,  Albert  Gallatin  deserves  the  proud 
title  ...  of  Citizen  of  the  World." 

Sketch  of  Livingston.  Edward  Livingston  was  the 
youngest  son  of  Robert  R.  Livingston,  Sr.  Educated 
at  Princeton,  he  studied  law  under  John  Lansing,  Sr., 
father  of  the  delegate  who  with  Judge  Yates  left  the 
Constitutional  Convention  in  protest  against  its  posi 
tion  on  State  rights.  Admitted  to  the  bar  in  1785, 
he  began  practice  in  New  York  City,  where  he  rose 
almost  at  once  to  the  highest  rank  in  the  profession. 
He  served  in  Congress  from  1795  to  1801,  sharing  the 
leadership  of  the  Opposition  with  Madison  and  Gallatin. 
In  1 80 1,  he  was  appointed  United  States  Attorney  for 
the  district  of  New  York,  and,  a  few  months  later,  was 
elected  Mayor  of  New  York. 

Bankrupted  by  a  subordinate's  misappropriation  of 
United  States  funds  in  his  hands,  Livingston  resigned 
both  his  offices,  and  turned  over  all  his  property  to 
apply  on  the  debt.  His  brother  Robert  having  nego 
tiated  the  Louisiana  Purchase,  Edward  removed,  in 
1804,  to  New  Orleans  to  retrieve  his  fortunes  by  the 
practice  of  law.  In  this  he  was  quickly  successful.  He 
codified  the  legal  procedure  of  Louisiana  in  which  there 


260  American  Debate  [1793- 

was  great  confusion  owing  to  the  change  of  government. 
In  prosecution  of  certain  land  claims  he  incurred  the 
unjust  accusation  of  being  connected  with  Burr's 
conspiracy,  and  attracted  the  hostility  of  President 
Jefferson.  Late  in  life,  however,  Jefferson  and  he 
become  reconciled. 

Livingston  was  on  close  terms  of  friendship  with 
General  Andrew  Jackson,  to  whom  he  acted  as  an  aide 
in  the  Second  War  with  Great  Britain.  Reentering 
Congress  in  1822,  and  serving  until  1829,  he  applied 
himself  to  the  business  of  his  office,  laboring  particularly 
to  reform  criminal  legislation  (as  he  had  done  in  his 
State),  to  ameliorate  the  condition  of  seamen,  and  to 
promote  the  navy.  In  1829  he  was  elected  to  the 
Senate.  Having  taken  an  active  part  in  the  long  and 
carefully  prepared  campaign  to  place  Jackson  in  the 
Presidential  chair,  he  was  appointed  Secretary  of 
State  by  that  staunch  supporter  of  friends  and  helpers 
on  the  resignation  of  Martin  Van  Buren  in  1831  to 
become  candidate  for  Vice-President.  Livingston  is 
credited  with  preparing  Jackson's  stern  proclamation 
against  nullification — a  significant  corroboration  of 
Madison's  claim  that  Calhoun  had  wrongfully  applied 
the  principles  of  the  "Republican  doctrine  of  1798" 
as  understood  by  the  leading  statesmen  of  that  period. 

As  minister  to  France  from  1833  to  1835,  Livingston 
showed  his  diplomatic  skill  by  settling  the  American 
spoliation  claims  arising  out  of  Napoleon's  decrees 
against  neutral  commerce  which  had  been  a  long  stand 
ing  grievance  between  France  and  the  United  States. 

As  a  legislator  his  power  was  chiefly  due  to  his  com 
prehensive  and  profound  knowledge  of  law,  which  in 
cluded  acquaintance  with  the  codes  of  all  the  civilized 
world.  He  wrote  much  on  legal  subjects,  chiefly 


i8oi]  Federalist  vs.  Republican  261 

treatises  on  criminal  jurisprudence  in  which  he  advo 
cated  abolition  of  capital  punishment. 

As  an  orator  his  effectiveness  was  greatly  due  to 
literary  style  of  expression.  Henry  Clay  once  asked 
Mrs.  Livingston  (a  witty  French  woman  whom  Living 
ston  had  married  in  New  Orleans  as  his  second  wife), 
why  it  was  that  her  husband's  speeches  read  so  much 
better  than  his,  which  had  been  more  effective  in  de 
livery.  She  dryly  suggested  that  it  was,  perhaps,  be 
cause  they  were  so  much  better  composed.  It  must 
not  be  thought,  however,  that  Livingston's  delivery  was 
deficient.  The  charm  of  personality  which  was  his 
most  distinctive  trait  extended  beyond  his  personal 
friends  to  his  audiences.  It  was  even  felt  by  those 
whose  contact  with  him  was  only  through  knowledge  of 
his  noble  character  and  kindly  deeds.  Thus,  when  he 
was  stricken  down  in  an  epidemic  of  yellow  fever  which 
swept  through  New  York  during  his  Mayoralty  of  that 
city,  throngs  of  people  filled  the  street  before  his  house 
to  catch  word  of  his  condition,  and,  on  its  becoming 
known  that  he  was  convalescent,  and  that  he  had 
exhausted  his  cellar  in  providing  wine  for  victims  in  the 
same  stage  of  the  disease,  the  rejoicing  citizens  vied 
with  each  other  in  sending  him  cases  of  the  rarest 
vintages. 

Sketch  of  Giles.  Though  afforded  an  opportunity 
to  acquire  the  best  academic  and  legal  education  offered 
in  America,  having  completed  at  Princeton  the  college 
course  which  he  began  at  Hampden-Sidney,  Va.,  and 
having  studied  law  under  Chancellor  Wythe,  William 
Branch  Giles  possessed  a  ruder,  more  intemperate 
nature  than  the  other  Republican  leaders,  and  in  this 
respect  was  a  more  typical  representative  of  the  body 
of  his  party.  In  a  long  service  in  Congress  (from  1791 


262  American  Debate  [1793- 

to  1803)  he  acquired  the  reputation  of  being  the  most 
forcible,  while  not  the  most  intellectual,  speaker  on  the 
floor,  and  was  certainly  its  most  accomplished  parlia 
mentary  tactician.  John  Randolph  considered  him  to 
be  in  the  American  House  what  Charles  James  Fox 
was  in  the  British  Commons :  the  most  effective  debater 
that  his  country  had  ever  seen. 

' '  But  their  acquired  advantages  were  very  different.  Fox 
was  a  ripe  scholar;  Giles  neither  read  nor  studied.  Fox 
perfected  himself  in  the  House,  speaking  on  every  subject; 
Giles  out  of  the  House,  talking  to  everybody." 

The  bold  character  and  partisan  spirit  of  Giles  were 
early  displayed  in  an  attack  which  he  made  in  January, 
1793,  on  Hamilton,  charging  that  official  with  corrup 
tion  in  the  conduct  of  the  Treasury.  Hamilton  fully 
vindicated  himself  in  a  report  to  the  House  of  Repre 
sentatives,  whereupon  his  accuser,  who  never  acknowl 
edged  defeat,  brazenly  proposed  resolutions  censuring 
the  Secretary  for  want  of  respect  to  the  House ! 

Giles  cooperated  with  Madison  in  procuring  the 
passage  in  their  State  legislature  of  the  Virginia  Resolu 
tions  of  1798.  From  1804  to  1811  he  represented  his 
State  in  the  Senate.  At  the  close  of  his  term,  having 
disagreed  with  President  Madison,  he  was  retired  to 
private  life.  In  1826  he  was  elected  Governor  of  Vir 
ginia.  He  took  a  distinguished  part  in  the  State  con 
stitutional  convention  of  1829-30.  He  was  a  polemic 
epistolary  writer,  publishing  in  1824  an  invective  letter 
against  President  Monroe  and  Speaker  Clay  for  riding 
such  " hobbies"  as  the  Monroe  Doctrine,  the  Greek 
cause,  internal  improvements,  and  the  tariff. 

The  Breach  with  France.  Conjoined  with  the  con 
troversy  over  Jay's  Treaty  with  Great  Britain  was  that 


Federalist  vs.  Republican  263 

over  the  strained  relations  with  France,  growing  out  of 
the  Treaty.  This  continued  intermittently  from  1796 
until  a  treaty  settled  the  difficulties  on  December  21, 
1801. 

The  Federalists,  under  the  leadership  of  President 
John  Adams,  advocated  presenting  a  stern  front  to 
France,  even  at  the  risk  of  war.  The  Republicans 
were  the  pacifists  of  the  day.1  Federalist  representa 
tives  who  came  into  prominence  in  the  debates  on  the 
"Breach  with  France "  were  Harrison  Gray  Otis  [Mass.], 
Robert  G.  Harper  [S.  C.],  James  A.  Bayard,  Sr.  [Del.], 
and  Thomas  Pinckney  [S.  C.] .  Gallatin,  Livingston,  and 
Giles  retained  their  preeminence  among  the  Republicans. 

Sketch  of  Otis.  Otis  was  a  nephew  of  James  Otis, 
and  had  much  of  the  gifts  of  eloquence  and  winning 
personality  which  distinguished  that  early  advocate 
of  American  rights.  Two  years  after  his  graduation 
from  Harvard  he  delivered  the  Independence  Day 
oration  at  Boston,  and  quickly  rose  in  repute  in  his 
chosen  profession  of  law.  His  Federalist  proclivities 
were  shown  by  his  service  as  an  officer  in  suppressing 
Shays's  rebellion.  From  1797  to  1801  he  was  a  member 
of  Congress.  From  1801  to  1811  he  held  various  high 
offices  in  his  State.  He  took  a  prominent  part  in  the 
Hartford  Convention  of  1814,  which  partially  diminished 
his  popularity,  but  he  was  nevertheless  chosen  United 
States  Senator  in  1817,  serving  until  1822,  when  he 
resigned  to  become  a  candidate  for  Mayor  of  Boston, 
an  office  then  established  for  the  first  time.  Failing 
of  election  this  time,  he  won  the  coveted  place  in  1829. 
In  his  inaugural  address  he  repudiated  the  charge  that 
the  members  of  the  Hartford  Convention,  or  any  of  the 

T"For  the  debates  on  this   subject  see  Great  Debates  in  American 
History,  vol.  ii.,  chap.  iii. 


264  American  Debate  [1793- 

Federalists,  contemplated  secession  of  their  States  from 
the  Union.  Outside  of  his  speeches  in  debate,  his  most 
notable  address  was  a  eulogy  of  Alexander  Hamilton 
delivered  shortly  after  the  death  of  that  statesman  in 
the  duel  with  Aaron  Burr. 

Sketch  of  Harper.  Robert  Goodloe  Harper  won  his 
place  among  the  statesmen  of  his  generation  by  in 
domitable  energy  inspired  by  the  purest  patriotism. 
The  son  of  poor  parents  in  Maryland,  he  enlisted  at  the 
age  of  fifteen  in  the  Continental  army  under  General 
Greene,  and,  at  the  close  of  the  Revolution  "worked 
his  way ' '  through  Princeton.  Removing  to  Charleston, 
S.  C.,  on  his  graduation,  he  studied  law,  and  set  up 
practice  in  an  interior  town  in  the  State.  After  service 
in  the  legislature  he  was  elected  to  Congress  in  1795, 
where  he  remained  until  1801,  when  he  was  retired  in 
the  general  defeat  of  the  Federalist  party.  He  then 
took  up  residence  in  his  native  State  and  became  emi 
nent  at  the  bar,  being  one  of  the  counsel  of  Samuel  Chase 
when  that  Federal  Justice  was  impeached.  He  fought 
as  an  officer  in  the  Second  War  with  Great  Britain. 
Elected  to  the  Senate  in  1816,  he  resigned  in  the  same 
year  to  become  a  Federalist  candidate  for  Vice-President. 
He  was  active  in  promoting  internal  improvements  and 
African  colonization. 

His  Congressional  career,  however,  gave  him  chief 
claim  for  eminence.  Not  alone  did  he  lead  in  the  de 
bates  of  that  period,  but  he  also  published  a  number  of 
widely  influential  pamphlets  on  the  questions  at  issue. 

Sketch  of  Bayard.  James  Asheton  Bayard,  Sr.,  was 
a  member  of  a  distinguished  Delaware  family.  Gradu 
ated  from  Princeton  in  1784,  he  studied  law,  and  was 
admitted  to  practice  at  Wilmington  in  1787.  He 
entered  Congress  in  1797,  becoming  very  shortly  the 


i8oi]  Federalist  vs.  Republican  265 

acknowledged  leader  of  the  Federalists,  as  indicated  by 
his  choice  in  that  year  as  manager  of  the  impeachment 
of  Senator  William  Blount  [Tenn.]  for  instigating  the 
Southern  Indians  in  their  war  against  the  Spanish 
possessions.  In  1801  he  led  with  great  skill  the  Federal 
ist  forces  in  the  contest  of  Jefferson  and  Burr  for  the 
Presidency  which  had  been  thrown  into  the  House, 
inducing  his  fellow  Federalists  finally  to  vote  in  favor 
of  Jefferson.  In  the  same  year  he  ably  opposed  the 
repeal  of  the  Judiciary  Act,  which  had  been  passed  by 
the  Federalist  Congress  in  the  closing  days  of  John 
Adams's  administration. 

In  1804  Bayard  was  elected  to  the  Senate.  He  op 
posed  with  great  ability  the  Second  War  with  Great 
Britain.  In  1813  he  was  chosen  by  President  Madison 
as  one  of  the  commissioners  to  conclude  peace.  His 
colleagues  were  John  Quincy  Adams,  Henry  Clay, 
Jonathan  Russell,  and  Albert  Gallatin.  After  the 
Treaty  of  Ghent  was  concluded,  the  place  of  minister 
to  Russia  was  offered  him,  but  he  declined  it  as  affording 
little  chance  of  service  to  his  country.  Taken  ill,  he 
hastened  home,  and  died  soon  after  his  arrival. 

Sketch  of  Pinckney.  Thomas  Pinckney  was  a 
brother  of  General  Charles  Cotesworth  Pinckney,  and 
himself  an  officer  (lieutenant)  in  the  Revolution.  Like 
most  of  the  wealthy  Carolinians  of  his  generation  he 
received  his  education  in  England — in  the  classics  at 
Westminster  and  Oxford,  and  in  law  at  the  Temple. 
In  1772  he  began  the  practice  of  his  profession  in  his 
native  city  of  Charleston.  In  1789  he  was  elected 
governor  of  the  State,  and  in  1792  was  appointed 
minister  to  Great  Britain.  On  the  expiration  of  his 
term  in  1794, he  was  sent  to  Spain,  where  he  signed  the 
treaty  of  St.  Ildefonso  which  settled  the  vexed  question 


266  American  Debate  [1793- 

of  the  navigation  of  the  Mississippi.  Returning  to 
America  in  1796,  he  was  the  Federalist  candidate  for 
Vice-President,  but  was  defeated  by  Thomas  Jefferson, 
who,  according  to  the  rule  in  force  at  that  time,  running 
second  to  John  Adams  for  President,  received  the 
second  office.  Pinckney  served  in  Congress  from  1797 
to  1 80 1.  He  fought  as  a  major-general  in  the  Second 
War  with  Great  Britain,  after  which  he  retired  to  pri 
vate  life,  and  devoted  himself  to  developing  agriculture 
and  mining  in  his  State. 

President  Adams's  Trap  for  the  Republicans.  Presi 
dent  Adams,  in  furtherance  of  a  promise  to  Congress 
to  reopen  negotiations  with  France,  appointed  Charles 
Cotesworth  Pinckney,  John  Marshall,  and  Elbridge 
Gerry  as  envoys  to  that  country.  On  March  19,  1798, 
he  informed  Congress,  in  general  terms,  of  the  failure  of 
the  mission,  and  recommended  preparations  for  war. 
The  fact  that  specific  reasons  for  such  defense  were  not 
given  encouraged  the  Opposition  in  the  House  of 
Representatives  to  present  "peace  resolutions "  to  the 
effect  that  preparation  for  war  was  not  expedient.  In 
the  debate  which  ensued  it  was  charged  that  the  Presi 
dent  was  withholding  papers  received  from  the  peace 
commissioners,  with  the  insinuation  that  there  must  be 
something  in  the  dispatches  which  would  show  that 
the  President  had  acted  improperly.  Thereupon  a 
Federalist,  John  Allen  [Ct.],1  who  would  seem  to  have 
been  inspired  by  the  executive,  moved  that  a  re 
quest  be  sent  to  President  Adams  for  the  dispatches, 
or  such  parts  thereof  as  considerations  of  public  safety 
and  interest  in  his  opinion  may  permit.  The  trap 
was  baited  with  the  italicized  passage.  The  Repub 
licans  moved  to  amend  the  resolution  by  striking 

1  For  sketch  see  page  270. 


i8oi]  Federalist  vs.  Republican  267 

the  passage  out,  and  sprang  the  trap  by  passing  the 
amendment. 

The  President  at  once  transmitted  to  the  House  all 
the  papers  in  question.  They  showed  that  Talleyrand, 
the  French  foreign  minister,  had  treated  our  envoys 
with  grossest  insult,  refusing  to  negotiate  with  them 
until  they  had  promised  bribes  in  the  guise  of  "loans" 
to  the  governments  of  France  and  Holland.  Talley 
rand's  agents  made  the  proposal  under  the  signatures 
"X,  Y,  and  Z, "  and  so  the  affair  became  known  as  the 
"XYZ  mission." 

The  envoys  spurned  the  offer,  saying,  "we  will  not 
give  you  sixpence" — a  reply  which  was  soon  glorified 
by  the  proud  Americans  at  home  into  the  grandiloquent 
epigram:  "Millions  for  defense,  but  not  one  cent  for 
tribute!" 

This  revelation  of  infamy  in  the  country  which  the 
Republicans  had  been  defending  reacted  disastrously 
on  that  party.  Those  members  who  were  more  pa 
triotic  than  partisan  joined  with  the  Federalists  in 
putting  the  country  into  a  state  of  defense.  Com 
mercial  intercourse  with  France  was  severed,  and  our 
French  treaties  were  annulled.  A  war  tax  was  laid, 
and  war  loans  were  authorized.  On  April  30,  1798, 
the  Navy,  which  had  been  a  part  of  the  War  Depart 
ment,  was  separated  therefrom,  and  organized  under  a 
Secretary  of  its  own,  Benjamin  Stoddert,  who  quickly 
put  it  on  a  war  footing.  The  Army  was  increased,  and 
placed  under  the  control  of  ex-President  Washington 
as  Lieutenant-General.  He  appointed  Hamilton,  Gen 
eral  Pinckney  (who  had  returned  with  Marshall  from 
France,  Gerry,  the  Republican  politician,  who  had  kept 
on  friendly  terms  with  the  French  government  having 
remained  to  take  advantage  of  a  favorable  turn  in 


268  American  Debate  [1793- 

affairs),  and  General  Henry  Knox  in  respective  order 
next  in  command. 

Adams  vs.  Hamilton.  Owing  to  Washington's  age, 
Hamilton  was  certain  to  get  the  chief  military  glory  of 
the  war.  Accordingly  President  Adams,  who  had  long 
resented  the  preeminence  of  that  statesman  in  the 
Federalist  party  and  was  now  for  the  first  time  in  his 
administration  enjoying  unalloyed  popularity,  the 
people  resounding  his  praises  in  songs  such  as  "Adams 
and  Liberty,"  suddenly  determined  on  peace.  In  so 
doing  he  hastened  the  downfall  of  his  party,  which 
seemed  assured  of  continued  rule  for  another  term  at 
least,  if  not  indefinitely. 

He  was  led  to  attempt  to  secure  a  new  treaty  with 
France  by  an  intimation  from  Talleyrand,  who  had 
become  alarmed  at  the  storm  he  had  raised,  that  Wil 
liam  Vans  Murray,  minister  to  Holland,  would  be 
acceptable  to  him  as  minister  to  France.  Accord 
ingly  the  President  appointed  Murray  to  this  place, 
and  associated  with  him  in  the  negotiations  for 
peace,  Oliver  Ellsworth  and  Governor  William  R. 
Davie  of  North  Carolina.  The  Hamilton  faction  in 
the  Senate  endeavored  to  defeat  the  appointments, 
but  in  vain,  since  Adams  formed  a  coalition  of  his 
own  faction  and  the  Republicans  (whose  prejudices  he 
played  upon  by  stigmatizing  the  Federalist  Opposition 
as  the  "British  faction")  which  succeeded  in  confirming 
the  nominations. 

The  envoys  found  a  new  Government  awaiting  them 
in  France.  Napoleon  returning  from  Egypt  had  been 
made  First  Consul,  and,  with  visions  of  Oriental  con 
quest  in  his  ambitious  mind,  was  glad  to  come  to  terms 
with  the  Western  republic.  He  signed  a  commercial 
convention  with  the  envoys  on  September  30,  1800, 


i8oi]  Federalist  vs.  Republican  269 

which  became  a  treaty  on  its  ratification  by  both 
governments  on  December  21,  1801. 

The  Alien  Laws.  Their  necessary  part  in  securing 
the  object  for  which  it  had  seemed  at  first  hopeless  to 
contend,  peace  with  France,  encouraged  the  Republicans 
greatly,  and,  when  the  Federalists,  intoxicated  with 
power,  on  the  plea  of  defending  the  country  in  the 
critical  time,  attempted  stringently  to  restrict  natural 
ization,  and  thereby  cut  off  Republican  recruits  (for 
the  emigrants  fleeing  from  Europe  in  those  revolution 
ary  days  naturally  allied  themselves  with  the  democratic 
party),  they  made  a  bold  stand  against  the  aristocratic 
measure. 

On  May  I,  1798,  Samuel  Sewall  [Mass.],  chairman 
of  the  Committee  of  Defense  of  the  Country,  reported 
resolutions  in  the  House  to  increase  the  term  of  residence 
required  for  naturalization;  to  register  aliens;  and  to 
deport,  at  the  pleasure  of  the  President,  natives  of 
countries  at  war  with  the  United  States. x 

Sketch  of  Sewall.  Sewall  was  a  member  of  one  of 
the  original  Puritan  families  in  New  England,  his  great 
grandfather  having  been  the  famous  judge  of  the  same 
name  who  tried  the  Salem  witchcraft  cases.  He  was  a 
graduate  of  Harvard  and  an  eminent  lawyer.  He 
served  in  Congress  from  1797  to  1800,  when  he  resigned 
to  accept  appointment  on  the  Massachusetts  Supreme 
Court.  He  became  chief  judge  in  1813,  and  died  in  the 
following  year. 

Sewall  was  a  type  of  the  best  sort  of  New  England 
Federalist,  a  man  who  believed  that  government  should 
be  in  the  hands  of  persons  of  education  and  property, 
inclined  by  birth,  breeding,  and  interest  to  uphold 

1  For  an  extended  report  of  the  debates  on  the  Alien  Bill  see  Great 
Debates  in  American  History,  vol.  vii.,  chap.  ii. 


270  American  Debate  [1793- 

prevailing  political  and  social  institutions,  yet  who 
would  not  carry  the  principles  of  aristocracy  and  nativ- 
ism  to  the  extreme  of  making  legal  limitations  to  this 
effect.  For  this  reason  he  drew  his  naturalization 
resolution  not  to  exclude  the  foreign-born  from  citizen 
ship,  but  to  enhance  it  a  privilege  in  their  eyes,  to  be 
won  by  a  longer  acquaintance  with  American  ideals  and 
institutions,  and  he  made  his  deportation  resolution 
apply  to  no  alien  but  one  whose  allegiance  to  his  govern 
ment  would  be  dangerous  to  the  country  of  his  residence 
because  of  war  existing  between  that  government  and 
country.  In  short,  he  drafted  his  resolutions  somewhat 
as  a  patrician,  but  more  as  a  patriot,  and  in  no  wise  as 
a  chauvinist  or  politician. 

Sketches  of  Rutledge  and  Allen.  The  debate, 
however,  was  begun  by  Federalists  of  the  extreme  type : 
John  Rutledge,  Jr.  [S.  C.],  son  of  the  great  orator  of  the 
Continental  Congress,  and  John  Allen  [Ct.],  unknown 
save  for  his  irrepressible  speeches  in  this  his  only  term 
in  Congress. 

Rutledge 's  eloquence  was  of  the  flaming  sort  which,  in 
a  later  day,  would  have  classed  him  with  the  Southern 
"fire-eaters."  Indeed,  on  the  subject  of  slavery  he 
had  already  set  a  model  for  the  Rhetts  and  Yanceys  of 
the  decade  preceding  the  Civil  War.  On  the  Alien 
resolutions,  however,  he  tempered  his  heat  with  some 
cold,  justifying  facts,  such  as  the  enlistment  which  was 
then  being  made  in  Kentucky  of  an  expedition  against 
New  Orleans. 

Allen,  a  man  of  ungovernable  temper,  revealed  him 
self  as  a  politician  of  the  lowest  order.  He  pointed  to 
the  vast  number  of  naturalizations  which  had  lately 
taken  place  in  the  city  (Philadelphia)  where  Congress 
was  now  in  session,  and  which  had  been  engineered  by 


Federalist  vs.  Republican  271 

managers  of  the  local  Republican  machine  to  secure 
control  of  the  city.  Referring  evidently  to  Irish  and 
Scotch  journalists,  who  had  been  expelled  because  of 
their  pro-French  activities  from  Great  Britain,  and, 
fleeing  to  America,  had  here  established  radical 
republican  newspapers  which  glorified  the  French 
revolutionists  even  in  their  excesses,  and  denounced 
everything  British  even  in  inherited  form  in  the  Ameri 
can  government,  with  particular  vilification  of  Hamil 
ton  and  President  Adams  as  exponents  of  the  hated 
system,  Allen  said  that  the  bill  was  too  mild  in  confining 
deportation  to  natives  of  countries  at  war  with  the 
United  States :  that  citizens  of  other  countries  than  the 
one  which  threatened  war  (France)  were  even  more 
hostile  to  our  interests.  He  therefore  moved  that  the 
resolutions  extend  to  all  aliens  in  the  country. 
Mr.  Sewall  opposed  the  amendment. 

Civil  policy  regarded  aliens  in  two  lights:  alien  friends 
and  alien  enemies.  His  deportation  resolution  applied  only 
to  the  latter  class.  He  did  not  contemplate  erecting  a  wall 
against  all  foreigners,  or  subjecting  them,  when  here,  to 
arbitrary  authority  such  as  is  known  only  to  the  French 
Directory.  If  the  placing  of  every  alien  in  a  dungeon  was 
necessary  to  quiet  the  fears  of  the  gentleman  from  Con 
necticut  he  would  not  be  willing  to  grant  it.  This  was  not 
a  country  of  Turks  or  Arabs. 

MR.  GALLATIN,  in  this  connection,  cited  Article  I., 
section  9  of  the  Constitution  as  restraining  Congress  from 
prohibiting,  before  1808,  the  migration  of  such  persons  as 
any  of  the  States  thought  proper  to  admit.  Besides  this, 
non-prohibition  of  friendly  aliens  was  a  principle  existing 
before  the  Constitution,  being  coeval  with  the  law  of  nations. 

The  resolutions  were  recommitted.  Mr.  Sewall 
reported  on  May  21 :  (i)  that  the  term  of  residence  for 


272  American  Debate  [1793- 

citizenship  be  extended  from  five  to  fourteen  years; 
(2)  that  no  alien  coming  from  a  country  at  war  with  us 
shall  be  admitted  to  citizenship  while  the  war  continues. 
These  resolutions  were  adopted,  the  first  by  a  vote  of 
41  to  40,  the  second  without  division.  When  the 
Republicans  came  into  power  they  repealed  this  bill 
(on  April  14,  1802),  and  restored  the  former  conditions 
of  naturalization. 

On  May  22,  1798,  the  original  resolution  concerning 
deportation  at  the  pleasure  of  the  President,  of  aliens 
born  in  a  country  at  war,  or  threatening  war  with  the 
United  States,  was  reported,  with  an  added  section 
committing  persons  suspected  of  harboring  such  aliens 
to  State  or  Federal  officers  for  examination  and  punish 
ment,  according  to  the  rules  of  the  President,  "subject, 
nevertheless,  to  the  regulations  which  Congress  shall 
thereafter  provide." 

MR.  GALLATIN  opposed  the  section  as  instituting  a  new 
crime,  that  of  being  suspected,  the  punishment  for  which  was 
arrest  and  imprisonment  until  it  should  be  determined  what 
the  crime  was.  This  was  contrary  not  only  to  justice  and 
reason,  but  to  the  Constitution  which  declared  that  "no 
person  shall  be  deprived  of  life,  liberty,  or  property  without 
due  process  of  law. " 

MR.  BAYARD  moved  to  amend  the  third  section  by  de 
fining  the  offense  as  a  misdemeanor,  punishable  by  im 
prisonment  not  exceeding  seven  years,  and  a  fine  not 
exceeding  one  thousand  dollars. 

The  amendment  was  carried.  After  several  vain 
attempts  by  Republican  Representatives  the  bill  was 
recommitted  by  a  vote  of  46  to  44.  The  objections 
having  been  removed,  on  June  26  it  was  again  reported 
and  passed  without  division,  another  more  drastic 


i8oi]  Federalist  vs.  Republican  273 

bill,  sent  down  from  the  Senate,  having  been  passed  on 
the  2 1  st. 

The  Senate  bill  empowered  the  President  to  order 
such  aliens  as  he  deemed  dangerous  to  depart  from  the 
country,  and,  upon  their  failure  so  to  do,  to  imprison 
them  for  three  years  and  debar  them  thereafter  from 
becoming  citizens.  If  a  deported  alien  should  return 
he  was  to  be  imprisoned  for  life,  with  hard  labor. 

The  arguments  on  the  preceding  bill  were  repeated. 
The  debate,  however,  lifted  from  the  particular  issue 
as  to  the  President's  power  over  aliens  to  the  general  one 
as  to  all  his  powers  and  the  powers  of  Congress  under 
the  Constitution.  For  the  first  time  in  American  poli 
tics  the  line  was  clearly  drawn  between  the  strict  and 
the  loose  construction  of  the  Constitution,  the  Repub 
licans  adhering  to  the  letter  of  the  Federal  charter,  and 
the  Federalists  claiming  implied  powers  in  addition 
to  those  specifically  granted. 

The  leading  supporters  of  the  bill  were  Messrs. 
Sewall,  Bayard,  Otis,  and  Harper.  The  leading 
opponents  were  Messrs.  Gallatin  and  Livingston. 

MR.  SEWALL  declared  that  the  power  over  aliens  was 
included  in  that  for  the  regulation  of  commerce.  Mr. 
Bayard  found  it  in  the  power  to  provide  for  the  common 
defense  and  welfare.  Mr.  Otis  found  it  in  the  power  of 
self -preservation,  necessary  to  every  government. 

MR.  GALLATIN  denied  Mr.  Sewall's  contention.  The 
bill  did  not  relate  to  commerce,  but  to  politics.  Aliens 
were  not  regarded  as  merchants,  but  as  potential  citizens — 
as  men. 

As  to  Mr.  Bayard's  contention,  Gallatin  said  that  the 
"general  welfare"  clause  could  not  be  construed  inde 
pendently  of  its  context;  it  was  an  intrinsic  part  of  the 
grant  to  tax,  which  immediately  preceded  it. 

18 


274  American  Debate  [1793- 

Mr.  Otis's  contention,  he  continued,  would  overturn  the 
express  prohibitions  in  the  Constitution,  such  as  that 
relative  to  suspension  of  habeas  corpus  in  time  of  peace.  It 
would  justify  the  Federal  government  superseding  the 
State  governments. 

If  this  bill  were  passed  against  aliens,  a  similar  one  might 
be  brought  against  citizens.  According  to  the  doctrine 
of  the  advocates  of  this  bill,  the  fifth  amendment  to  the 
Constitution,  prohibiting  the  depriving  of  any  person 
(including  alien  and  citizen)  of  life,  liberty,  or  property 
without  due  process  of  law,  is  of  none  effect,  for  it  gives 
to  the  President  the  power  of  arbitrary  imprisonment. 

MR.  HARPER  said  that  if  the  arguments  of  Mr.  Gallatin 
were  valid,  then  the  Federal  government  was  powerless  to 
defend  itself  against  destruction.  There  is  no  danger  that 
the  rights  of  citizens  would  be  invaded  under  the  bill. 
To  argue  the  abuse  of  power  from  its  existence  would  pre 
vent  the  giving  any  power  whatsoever. 

The  zeal  shown  against  the  bill  evinces  the  deadly  hatred 
of  certain  persons  against  its  purpose,  which  is  a  patriotic 
one.  Those  European  nations  which  have  escaped  the 
tyranny  of  the  domineering  spirit  of  France  owe  their  safety 
to  a  bill  like  this;  and,  unless  we  follow  their  example  and 
crush  the  viper  in  our  breast,  we  shall  not  escape  destruction. 

MR.  LIVINGSTON  declared  that  there  was  no  evidence 
that  there  was  a  viper  at  our  breast.  We  must  legislate 
upon  facts,  not  surmises. 

But  he  opposed  the  bill  on  higher  grounds.  The  prin 
ciples  of  our  government  constitute  a  difference  between  a 
free  republic  and  a  despotism.  The  division  of  government 
into  its  three  branches  is  clearly  defined  in  order  to  protect 
the  liberties  of  the  people.  Every  act  which  confuses 
these  is  destructive  of  our  Constitution  and  free  govern 
ment.  This  bill  introduces  such  confusion.  The  President 
makes  the  law;  the  President  construes  and  applies  it; 
and  the  same  President  executes  the  sentence  at  his  pleasure. 

The  crime  consists  in  "exciting  the  suspicions  of  the 


i8oi]  Federalist  vs.  Republican  275 

President,"  but  no  man  can  tell  what  conduct  will  avoid 
that  suspicion — a  careless  word,  perhaps  misinterpreted, 
may  oe  sufficient  evidence;  an  idle  gesture  may  insure 
punishment;  surrounded  by  spies,  informers,  and  all  that 
infamous  herd  which  fatten  under  laws  like  this,  the  un 
fortunate  stranger  will  never  know  either  of  the  law,  of  the 
accusation,  or  of  the  judgment  until  the  moment  it  is  put 
in  execution. 

Mr.  Livingston  then  recited  the  Constitutional  pro 
visions  with  which  he  claimed  that  the  bill  was  in 
conflict : 

1.  The  "migration"  clause  (Art.  I.,  sec.  9)  cited  in  the 
first  debate  by  Gallatin. 

2.  The  third  Article,  providing  that  all  "judicial  power 
shall  be  vested  in  the  Supreme  and  Inferior  Courts. " 

3.  The  provision  in  the  same  Article  that  "the  trial  of 
all  crimes  shall  be  by  jury, "  except  in  the  case  of  impeach 
ment,  enforced  by  the  fifth  and  sixth  amendments  to  the 
same  effect. 

Mr.  Livingston  continued: 

So  obviously  do  the  constitutional  objections  present 
themselves  that  two  wretched  subterfuges  are  resorted  to 
to  remove  them  out  of  sight.  First,  that  the  bill  does  not 
contemplate  punishment  of  a  crime  and  so  the  provisions 
in  the  Constitution  relative  to  criminal  proceedings  do  not 
apply.  But  the  bill  speaks  of  "treasonable  machinations 
against  the  government. "  And  this,  we  are  told,  is  no  crime ! 
a  treasonable  machination  against  the  government  is  not 
the  subject  of  criminal  jurisprudence!  Good  Heaven!  to 
what  absurdities  does  an  overzealous  attachment  to  par 
ticular  measures  lead  us ! 

So,  too,  it  is  claimed,  that  the  penalty  provided  is  no 
punishment — only  a  ' '  prevention . ' '  Loss  of  business ,  loss  of 
property,  perhaps  separation  from  his  family,  and  the  return 


276  American  Debate 

to  a  country  whose  government,  irritated  by  his  renuncia 
tion  of  its  authority,  will  receive  only  to  punish  him — all 
this,  we  are  told  is  no  punishment ! 

Again,  we  are  told  that  the  constitutional  compact  was 
made  between  citizens  only,  and  therefore  that  its  provisions 
do  not  extend  to  aliens.  But,  unfortunately,  neither  com 
mon  law,  common  justice,  nor  the  practice  of  any  civilized 
nation  will  permit  this  distinction.  [Here  the  young 
statesman  clearly  elucidated  what  had  never  before  been 
expounded  in  the  halls  of  Congress,  the  authority  in  the 
United  States  of  the  common  law,  which  made  no  distinc 
tion  between  aliens  and  citizens.] 

Let  us  look  now  at  the  consequences  of  this  illegal  and 
heinous  act.  Will  the  people  submit  to  it  ?  Will  the  States 
sanction  our  usurped  power?  Sir,  they  ought  not  to  sub 
mit;  they  would  deserve  the  chains  which  these  measures 
are  forging  for  them,  if  they  did  not  resist.  For  let  no  man 
imagine  that  a  few  unprotected  aliens  are  to  be  affected  by 
this  inquisitorial  power.  The  same  arguments  which 
enforce  these  provisions  against  aliens  apply  with  equal 
strength  to  enacting  them  against  citizens.  Thus  the  first 
effects  of  this  measure  will  be  disaffection  among  the  States, 
and,  among  the  people,  tumults  and  a  recurrence  to  first 
revolutionary  principles.  Granted,  however,  that  the 
government  shall  stand,  what  a  fearful  picture  is  presented ! 
"The  country  will  swarm  with  informers,  spies,  delators, 
and  all  that  odious  reptile  tribe  that  breed  in  the  sunshine 
of  despotic  power;  that  suck  the  blood  of  the  unfortunate, 
and  creep  into  the  bosom  of  sleeping  innocence,  only  to 
awake  it  with  a  burning  wound." 

Mr.  Livingston  then  adverted  to  the  loss  of  wealth, 
of  population,  and  of  commerce  which  would  be  occa 
sioned  by  the  act. 

"But  I  ought  to  entreat  the  pardon  of  the  House  for 
having  touched  on  this  topic,  to  which,  compared  with  the 


i8oi]  Federalist  vs.  Republican  277 

breach  of  our  Constitution,  and  the  establishment  of  arbi 
trary  power,  every  other  topic  is  trifling. 

"  Do  not  let  us  flatter  ourselves,  then,  that  these  measures 
will  be  unobserved  or  disregarded.  Do  not  let  us  be  told, 
sir,  that  we  excite  a  fervor  against  foreign  aggression  only 
to  establish  tyranny  at  home;  that,  like  the  arch  traitor,  we 
cry  'Hail  Columbia!11  at  the  moment  we  are  betraying  her 
to  destruction;  that  we  sing  out  'Happy  Land! '  when  we  are 
plunging  it  in  ruin  or  disgrace;  and  that  we  are  absurd 
enough  to  call  ourselves  'free  and  enlightened,'  while  we 
advocate  principles  that  would  have  disgraced  the  age  of 
Gothic  barbarity,  and  establish  a  code  compared  to  which 
the  ordeal  is  wise,  and  trial  by  battle  is  merciful  and  just. " 

This  bill  was  passed  on  June  21  by  a  vote  of  46  to 
40.  No  prosecutions  took  place  under  the  act,  which 
was  repeated  when  the  Republicans  came  into  power. 

The  Sedition  Law.  In  the  course  of  the  debate  on 
the  Alien  Law  Mr.  Harper  intimated  that  a  bill  against 
seditious  practices  was  preparing.  This  was  brought 
forward  in  the  Senate  on  June  26,  1798,  and  passed  on 
July  4  by  a  vote  of  18  to  6.  It  was  introduced  the 
next  day  in  the  House. 2  It  provided  that  persons  con 
spiring  to  oppose  any  measure  of  the  government,  or 
to  intimidate  a  Federal  officer  from  exercising  his  trust, 
should  be  punished  by  fine  and  imprisonment.  Any 
person  who,  by  writing,  speaking,  or  printing,  should 
threaten  a  Federal  officer  with  damage  to  his  character, 

1  "Hail    Columbia"    had   just   been   published.     The   words   were 
written  by  Joseph  Hopkinson,  an  eminent  lawyer  of  Philadelphia  and 
a  prominent  Federalist,  to  the  air  of  "The  President's  March,"  com 
posed  in  1789  by  a  German  named  Feyles.     It  was  intended  to  arouse 
patriotic  fervor  in  support  of  the  Administration,  and  therefore  was 
taken  up  in  the  beginning  by  the  Federalists  almost  as  a  party  song. 

2  For  an  extended  report  of  the  debate  see  Great  Debates  in  American 
History,  vol.  vii.,  chap.  iii. 


278  American  Debate  [1793- 

or  should  incite  a  riot,  was  to  be  fined  not  exceeding 
five  thousand  dollars  and  imprisoned  for  not  less  than 
six  months  or  more  than  five  years.  If  he  traduced 
Congress,  the  President,  or  the  Federal  judiciary  by 
imputing  motives  hostile  to  the  Constitution,  he  was  to 
be  fined  not  more  than  two  thousand  dollars  and  impris 
oned  not  more  than  two  years.  The  bill  was  debated 
until  July  10,  when  it  was  passed  by  a  vote  of  44  to  41. 

The  debaters  were  largely  those  of  the  Alien  bill, 
John  Nicholas  [Va.],  however,  who  had  not  figured 
prominently  in  the  former  debate,  taking  a  leading 
part  in  this  one. 

Sketch  of  Nicholas.  Nicholas  was  one  of  four 
distinguished  sons  of  Robert  Carter  Nicholas,  already 
noted  as  an  opponent  of  Patrick  Henry's  Stamp  Act 
resolutions.  He  served  in  Congress  from  1793  to 
1 80 1.  In  1803  he  removed  to  Geneva,  N.  Y.,  and 
engaged  in  agriculture.  He  was  the  first  judge  of  the 
court  of  common  pleas  in  Ontario  county  from  1806 
until  his  death  in  1819. 

The  constitutional  arguments  on  the  Sedition  bill 
were  much  the  same  as  those  on  the  Alien  bill.  The 
First  Amendment  of  the  Constitution  guaranteeing 
liberty  of  speech  and  the  press  was  particularly  urged 
against  the  measure. 

MR.  HARPER,  in  order  to  be  consistent  with  his  position 
on  the  Alien  Law,  admitted  that  he  held  that  there  was  no 
common-law  jurisdiction  in  the  courts  of  the  United  States, 
but  he  claimed  that  the  common-law  doctrine  of  libels  was 
as  applicable  to  the  government  of  the  United  States  as  to 
any  other  government. 

MR.  NICHOLAS  pertinently  replied:  If  the  common-law 
was  not  adopted  by  the  Constitution  and  formed  no  part  of 


Federalist  vs.  Republican  279 

it,  where  is  the  rule  by  which  to  ascertain  where  the  liberty 
of  the  press  ends  and  its  licentiousness  begins  ? 

He  admitted  that  some  of  our  printers  had  abused  this 
liberty,  but  he  was  far  from  being  convinced  of  either  the 
propriety  or  necessity  of  legislative  interference  in  the 
matter.  Falsehoods  issued  from  a  press  inflict  no  lasting 
injury,  unless  it  be  on  the  press  from  which  they  proceed. 
Every  publisher  who  consults  his  interest  and  respectability 
will  endeavor  to  make  his  newspaper  a  vehicle  of  correct 
information. 

Legislators  in  particular  should  not  fear  to  be  charged 
falsely  by  the  press,  as  they  are  in  a  position  to  refute  the 
slander.  This  was  recognized  in  England,  where,  even  in 
time  of  alarm,  there  was  no  disposition  to  protect  states 
men  against  examination  in  the  public  prints.  He  trusted 
that  the  representatives  in  this  free  country  would  not  con 
sent  to  pass  laws  preventing  a  similar  examination.  It  was 
better  that  fifty  slanderers  should  escape  punishment  than 
that  a  single  oppression  with  respect  to  the  liberty  of  the 
press  should  take  place. 

Mr.  Otis  held,  in  opposition  to  his  fellow  Federalist, 
Mr.  Harper,  that  the  common  law  was  recognized  in  the 
Constitution. 

The  people  of  the  individual  States  brought  with  them 
as  a  birthright  into  the  country  the  common  law  of  England, 
upon  which  all  of  the  colonies  founded  their  statute  law. 
All  the  States  afterwards  erected  from  the  colonies  more  or 
less  explicitly  recognized  the  common  law  in  their  constitu 
tions,  Maryland,  for  example,  declaring  it  to  be  the  law  of 
the  land.  Therefore,  when  the  Federal  Constitution  was 
formed,  the  people,  without  formal  declaration,  assumed 
that  the  common  law  prevailed  in  the  new  government,  and 
implied  this  by  such  references  in  the  Constitution  as  that 
the  powers  of  the  judiciary  extended  "to  all  cases  in  law 
and  equity,  arising  under  the  Constitution,  the  laws  of  the 


280  American  Debate  1*793- 

United  States,  etc.,"  which  provision  clearly  shows  that 
other  laws  than  United  States  statutes  were  comprehended. 
These  other  laws  referred  to  could  only  be  the  body  of  the 
common  law.  Besides,  the  Constitution  uses  such  terms 
as  "trial,"  "jury"  and  "impeachment,"  an  explanation  of 
which  is  afforded  by  the  common  law  alone. 

Accordingly  a  crime  under  the  common  law  did  not  have 
to  be  specifically  mentioned  in  the  Constitution  to  come 
under  the  jurisdiction  of  the  Federal  government.  As 
an  illustration  of  this  he  cited  the  fact  that  bribery  in  a 
judge,  and  even  a  contract  to  give  a  bribe  (which  was  a 
restraint  upon  the  liberty  of  writing  and  speaking)  were 
punishable,  though  not  mentioned  in  the  Constitution. 

The  language  of  the  First  Amendment,  "freedom  of 
speech  and  of  the  press,"  he  contended,  was  a  phraseology 
familiar  in  the  jurisprudence  of  every  State,  and  of  a  certain 
and  technical  meaning.  This  meaning  was  the  liberty  of 
writing,  publishing,  and  speaking  one's  thoughts,  subject  to 
being  answerable  to  the  injured  party,  whether  this  be  an 
individual  or  the  government.  In  England  libels  against 
Parliament  are  offenses  against  the  common  law. 

The  gentleman  from  Virginia  inquires  how  the  line  can  be 
drawn  between  the  liberty  and  the  licentiousness  of  the 
press  ?  He  would  answer,  by  an  honest  jury. * 

Mr.  Gallatin  opposed  Mr.  Otis's  argument. 

The  gentleman  has  confounded  two  distinct  ideas:  the 
principles  of  the  common  law,  and  the  jurisdiction  over 
cases  arising  under  it.  Had  he  proved  that  the  Federal 
courts  had  jurisdiction  over  offenses  (including  libels)  at 
common  law,  there  would  be  no  need  to  pass  the  present 
bill.  Plainly  the  intent  of  the  supporters  of  the  measure 

'For  a  brief  on  "The  Common  Law  Jurisdiction  of  the  Federal 
Courts,"  see  an  extract  from  Associate- Justice  Joseph  Story's  Com 
mentaries  on  the  Constitution  reproduced  on  page  115  of  vol.  viii.  of 
Great  Debates  in  American  History. 


i8oi]  Federalist  vs.  Republican  281 

is  to  write  into  the  law  of  the  United  States  the  common 
law  of  libels,  which  has  been  so  modified  as  to  be  dissimilar 
in  every  State.  The  present  bill  even  adds  a  tyrannical 
feature  to  the  law,  in  that  it  punishes  the  mere  writing  of 
what  is  adjudged  to  be  libellous,  without  adducing  proof 
that  the  writing  has  been  communicated. 

The  gentleman  speaks  of  an  " honest  jury."  What 
security  has  a  citizen  charged  with  libelling  the  Adminis 
tration,  that  the  jury  will  not  be  packed  by  the  Adminis 
tration  ?  He  maintained  with  Mr.  Nicholas  that  the  proper 
weapon  to  combat  error  was  truth,  and  that  the  use  of 
coercion  to  suppress  criticism  of  government  measures  was 
a  confession  that  these  could  not  otherwise  be  defended. 

Mr.  Livingston,  in  opposing  the  bill,  quoted  from 
John  Adams's  Defence  of  the  American  Constitution 
in  which  the  present  President,  in  whose  interest  the 
bill  was  framed,  had  shown  that  one  of  the  insidious 
steps  in  the  downfall  of  free  government  is  restriction 
of  free  speech  and  opinion. 

Mr.  Harper  in  retaliation  quoted  from  Dr.  Franklin's 
essay  The  Court  of  the  Press  a  passage  recommending 
restoration  of  "the  liberty  of  the  cudgel" — that  is,  the 
right  of  an  individual  to  inflict  bodily  punishment  on 
his  libeller. 

"Now,"  says  Dr.  Franklin,  "the  right  of  making  such 
returns  is  denied,  and  they  are  punished  as  breaches  of  the 
peace,  while  the  right  of  abusing  seems  to  remain  in  full 
force;  the  laws  made  against  it  being  rendered  ineffectual 
by  the  liberty  of  the  press. 

"I  would  humbly  recommend  our  legislators  to  take  up 
the  consideration  of  both  liberties,  that  of  the  press  and  that 
of  the  cudgel,  and,  by  an  explicit  law,  mark  their  limits,  and 
at  the  same  time  secure  the  person  of  a  citizen  from  assaults, 
and  provide  for  the  security  of  his  reputation. " 


282  American  Debate  [1793- 

The  bill  was  passed  on  July  10  by  a  vote  of  44  to  41. 
It  was  repealed  when  the  Republicans  came  into  power. 

The  only  prosecutions  under  the  Sedition  Law  were  of 
certain  Republicans  for  circulating  petitions  against  it 
or  for  such  ridiculous  offenses  as  the  lese-majeste  of  wish 
ing,  on  the  occasion  of  a  military  salute  to  President 
Adams,  that  the  wadding  of  the  cannon  might  strike 
him  where  it  would  render  his  seat  in  the  executive 
chair  an  uncomfortable  one.  No  one  was  convicted 
under  the  law.  Federalists  of  the  Hamilton  faction 
contemptuously  disregarded  the  law,  Hamilton  himself 
publishing,  without  incurring  prosecution,  an  attack  on 
the  President  charging  him  with  "disgusting  egotism, 
distempered  jealousy,  ungovernable  indiscretion,  and 
arrogant  pretence  to  superior  and  exclusive  merit." 

The  Kentucky  and  Virginia  Resolutions. x  To  Jeffer 
son  and  Madison  it  seemed  that  the  Federal  govern 
ment  was  preparing  to  seize  supreme  control  over  the 
States  such  as  Parliament  exercised  over  Great  Britain. 
Indeed,  the  Alien  and  Sedition  Laws  were  modeled  on 
those  which  had  been  enacted  by  Parliament  in  1792— 
93.  Even  a  convention  of  the  States,  called  in  accord 
ance  with  the  provisions  of  the  Constitution  to  change 
that  instrument  by  enabling  a  three-fourths  vote  of  the 
States  to  nullify  any  act  of  the  Federal  government, 
might  be  prohibited  as  seditious.  Accordingly  the 
Republican  leaders  determined  to  sound  the  States 
on  the  question  of  whether  such  a  convention  would  be 
acceptable  or  not.  Kentucky,  as  almost  unanimously 
Republican,  was  chosen  as  the  State  in  which  to  begin 
the  movement. 


1  For  an  extended  account  of  the  controversy  over  these  Resolutions 
see  Great  Debates  in  American  History,  vol.  vii.,  chap.  iv. 


Federalist  vs.  Republican  283 

It  is  a  subject  of  historical  controversy  as  to  whether 
Jefferson,  who  in  later  years  claimed  their  authorship, 
or  the  man  who  on  Jefferson's  accession  to  the  Presi 
dency  became  the  Administration  leader  in  the  Senate, 
John  Breckinridge  [Ky.],  wrote  the  Resolutions  which 
were  passed  by  the  Kentucky  legislature  in  November, 
1798,  against  the  obnoxious  laws.1  Whoever  was  their 
author,  Jefferson  fathered  the  Resolutions.  These  de 
clared  that  the  Union  of  the  States  was : 

1.  "  A  compact  by  which  each  State  delegated  to  the  Fed 
eral  government  definite  powers,  reserving  to   itself  the 
residuary  mass  of  right  to  its  own  self-government . ' '     There 
fore  Federal  acts  based  on  the  undelegated  powers  are  void, 
the  Federal  government  not  having  been  constituted  a 
final  judge  in  the  matter,  since  this  would  have  made  its 
discretion,  and  not  the  Constitution,  the  measure  of  its 
powers.     Since    the    Constitution    established    no    judge 
between  the  Federal  government  and  the  States,  according 
to  the  practice  in  such  compacts,  each  party  has  an  equal 
right  to  judge  for  itself,  as  well  of  infractions  as  of  the 
mode  and  measure  of  redress. 

2.  Congress  has  the  right  to  pass  laws  to  punish  only 
those  crimes  expressly  mentioned  in  the  Constitution  as 
under  its  jurisdiction. 

3.  Power  over  speech  and  the  press  is  reserved  to  the 
States. 

4-6.  For  these  reasons  the  Alien  Laws  are  void;  also, 
because  they  are  repugnant  to  Article  I.,  sec.  9  of  the 
Constitution  (the  "migration"  provision),  and  to  Amend 
ments  V.  and  VI.,  and  Article  III.,  sec.  i,  securing  regular 
process  of  law  to  the  accused. 

7.  The  broad  construction  by  the  Administration  of  the 
"general  welfare"  clause  (Article  I.,  sec.  8,  par.  i),  and  of 

'See  "The  Kentucky  Resolutions,"  by  Dr.  Ethelbert  D.  Warfield, 
introduction  to  volume  v.  of  Great  Debates  in  American  History. 


284  American  Debate  U793- 

the  authorization  of  executory  laws  (Idem,  par.  18),  is 
inadmissible,  since  these  grants  are  either  subsidiary  to  the 
limited  powers  mentioned  in  the  context,  or,  if  construed 
independently,  destructive  of  the  whole  Constitution. 

Kentucky  called  on  her  co-States  to  declare  whether 
the  Alien  and  Sedition  Acts  were  or  were  not  authorized 
by  the  Federal  compact,  and,  if  they  concurred  with  her 
contention,  to  join  with  her  in  requesting  repeal  of  the 
Acts  at  the  next  Congress. 

Only  Virginia  so  concurred,  her  resolutions  to  the 
same  purport  as  Kentucky's  being  drafted  by  Madison. 
The  other  States  sent  replies  upholding  the  Acts  com 
plained  of  as  constitutional  and  denouncing  the  Ken 
tucky  and  Virginia  Resolutions  as  revolutionary  and 
dangerous. 

The  legislature  of  Kentucky,  in  reply  to  the  answers 
of  the  other  States  to  her  resolutions  and  those  of  Vir 
ginia,  passed  a  supplementary  resolution  in  November, 
1799.  This  declared: 

"That  a  nullification  by  those  sovereignties  [the  States] 
of  all  unauthorized  acts  done  [by  the  Federal  government] 
under  color  of  that  instrument  [the  Constitution]  is  the 
rightful  remedy. 

At  the  same  time  it  recorded  its  solemn  protest 
against  the  Alien  and  Sedition  Acts  as  measures  of  the 
kind  referred  to. 

The  Virginia  legislature  referred  the  answers  of  the 
States  to  a  committee  of  which  Madison  was  chairman. 
During  the  session  of  1799-1800  the  committee  made  its 
report,  which  had  been  drafted  by  Madison.1 

1  For  a  digest  of  this  Report,  see  Great  Debates  in  American  History, 
vol.  vii.,  p.  105. 


i8oi]  Federalist  vs.  Republican  285 

Madison's  report  was  widely  circulated  throughout 
the  Union,  and  furnished  the  Republicans  an  armory  of 
arguments  not  only  against  the  Alien  and  Sedition 
Laws,  but  against  the  fundamental  principle  of  Fed 
eralism,  the  increase  of  Federal  powers  by  a  broad 
construction  of  the  Constitution.  It  remains  to-day 
as  the  most  thorough  exposition  of  early  Republican 
doctrine,  the  State-rights  theory  in  its  first  stage  of 
development.  It  has  been  called  by  enthusiastic 
admirers  the  "Bible  of  Democracy"  and  "The  Second 
Declaration  of  Independence." 

The  emphatic  repudiation  of  the  Kentucky  and  Vir 
ginia  Resolutions  by  the  other  States  effectually  disposed 
of  the  plan  of  Jefferson  and  Madison  to  call  a  national 
constitutional  convention  of  the  States.  Nevertheless, 
while  they  failed  in  their  specific  proposition,  they 
succeeded  beyond  their  greatest  expectation  in  their 
general  purpose,  which  was  to  induce  the  Federalist 
party  "to  show  its  hand, "  and  so  enable  the  Republican 
leaders  to  sound  an  alarm  throughout  the  Union,  rousing 
the  people  in  defense  of  State  rights  and  popular 
liberties.  Their  "campaign  of  education"  resulted 
in  the  virtual  destruction  of  the  Federalist  party,  and 
the  accession  of  the  (Democratic)  Republican  party 
to  national  power  in  the  Congressional  and  Presidential 
election  of  1800,  and  its  retention  in  this,  with  the 
exceptions  of  the  "National  Republican"  administra 
tion  of  John  Quincy  Adams  (1825-29),  and  the  "Whig" 
administrations  of  Harrison-Tyler  (1841-45)  and  Tay- 
lor-Fillmore  (1849-53),  down  to  the  Civil  War. 

Indeed,  so  complete  was  this  "Democratic  Revolu 
tion,  "  as  it  is  known  in  American  political  history,  that 
in  the  course  of  time  such  former  strongholds  of  Feder 
alism  as  Massachusetts  and  Pennsylvania  passed  reso- 


286  American  Debate  [1793- 

lutions  almost  identical  in  sentiment  with  those  of 
Kentucky  and  Virginia.1 

Election  of  President  Jefferson.  The  election  of  a 
Republican  President  being  certain,  and  the  choice  of 
Jefferson  for  this  honor  being  clearly  the  desire  of  the 
voters,  Aaron  Burr,  the  "boss"  of  the  Republican  party 
in  New  York  ostensibly  sought  the  position  of  Vice- 
President,  while  secretly  determining  to  secure  the 
chief  place  by  seizing  the  occasion  afforded  by  the 
bungling  constitutional  method  of  selecting  the  two 
officers  which  then  prevailed  in  the  Electoral  College. 
Each  Elector  voted  for  two  men  without  designating 
the  office  either  was  to  fill,  and  the  candidate  receiving 
the  most  votes  was  declared  elected  President,  and  the 
one  receiving  the  next  highest  number  was  designated 
as  Vice-President.  Burr,  by  clever  manipulation,  con 
trived  that  he  and  Jefferson  headed  the  poll,  receiv 
ing  an  equal  number  of  votes.  This,  by  the  rule  of  the 
Constitution,  cast  the  election  into  the  House  of  Repre 
sentatives,  where,  in  such  a  decision,  each  State  had 
one  vote,  and  the  majority  decided.  The  Federalists 
had  a  small  majority  in  the  House. 

Now  the  Federalists  hated  Jefferson  more  bitterly 
than  any  other  Republican,  and  were  anxious  to  save 
for  themselves  as  many  official  positions  as  possible.  So 
Burr  made  a  bargain  with  the  politicians  of  that  party, 
that  in  the  event  of  his  election  Federalists  would  be 
recognized  in  the  dispensation  of  offices.  To  secure 


1  However,  as  Professor  Alexander  Johnston  notes  in  his  American 
Political  History,  Virginia,  where  Federalist  sentiment  was  so  strong  at 
the  time  of  Madison's  resolutions  that  these  were  carried  only  by  a  small 
majority  after  strenuous  opposition,  also  reversed  her  opinion,  and 
censured  severely  the  Democratic  resolutions  of  Pennsylvania  and 
Massachusetts. 


Federalist  vs.  Republican  287 

the  coveted  place,  the  votes  of  nine  out  of  the  sixteen 
States  then  in  the  Union  were  required.  The  Burr- 
Federalist  coalition  secured  eight  of  these.  Jefferson 
had  six  States  behind  him.  In  the  two  remaining 
States  the  vote  was  equally  divided. 

The  balloting  in  the  House  continued  from  February 
II  to  17,  1 80 1,  amid  the  intense  excitement  of  the 
country,  many  believing  it  was  the  Federalist  intention 
to  delay  decision  until  after  March  4  when  they  would 
make  John  Marshall  (who  had  recently  been  appointed 
Chief -Justice)  the  chief  magistrate.  Such  action,  by 
nullifying  the  revolution  of  opinion  in  the  country, 
would  undoubtedly  have  incited  a  forcible  overturning 
of  the  government,  and  so  James  A.  Bayard,  Sr.  [Del.], 
the  Federalist  leader  of  the  House,  patriotically  inducing 
his  own  State  and  the  divided  States  to  vote  for  Jeffer 
son,  secured  the  election  of  the  man  who  was  plainly  the 
choice  of  the  country.  It  was  to  prevent  the  recurrence 
of  such  "deadlocks"  that  the  Twelfth  Amendment  to 
the  Constitution  was  adopted  in  1804. 

The  Midnight  Judges.  In  order  to  provide  places 
for  "wheel-horses"  of  the  party,  the  Federalist  majority 
of  the  outgoing  Congress  had  passed  an  act  to  create 
twenty-three  new  Federal  judgeships,  although  there 
was  insufficient  business  to  occupy  the  attention  of  the 
existing  judiciary.  On  the  day  following  the  election 
of  Jefferson,  President  Adams  signed  the  measure. 
However,  he  postponed,  rather  contemptuously  of  the 
party  leaders  who  were  urging  his  action,  the  appoint 
ment  of  the  judges  till  the  close  of  the  last  day  of  his 
administration.  The  story  was  told,  although  it  is 
now  generally  discredited  by  historians,  that  he  spent 
the  time  until  midnight  signing  the  commissions,  and 
had  not  finished  the  work  when,  at  the  stroke  of  twelve, 


288  American  Debate  1*793- 

a  representative  of  the  incoming  President,  having  heard 
of  the  action,  entered  the  executive  office  to  take  pos 
session,  thereby  causing  Mr.  Adams  to  stuff  the  un 
finished  papers  in  his  pocket,  and  hastily  to  depart  to 
sign  them  elsewhere.  Belief  in  this  story  caused  all 
the  appointees  to  be  afterward  styled  "the  midnight 
judges,"  and  some  of  them  "the  pocket  judges." 

The  new  Congress  repealed  the  act,  and  hence  prac 
tically  "recalled"  the  judges,  on  February  3,  1802. 
The  Federalists,  particularly  Mr.  Bayard,  made  strenu 
ous  objection  to  this  as  violating  the  Constitution. x 

On  the  morning  of  the  inauguration  of  his  successor, 
Mr.  Adams,  believing  Jefferson  to  be  the  instigator  of 
much  of  the  Republican  abuse  which  had  been  heaped 
upon  him,  took  his  coach  for  Massachusetts,  discourte 
ously  declining  to  be  present  at  the  ceremonies.  In 
later  life,  as  we  have  noted,  he  became  reconciled 
with  his  great  co-worker  in  the  cause  of  American 
independence. 

The  Know-Nothing  Movement.  The  distrust  of 
the  foreign-born,  which  occasioned  the  Alien  and 
Sedition  laws,  remained  in  the  country,  and  rose  again 
to  a  political  issue  when  abuses  of  naturalization  had 
increased  to  an  alarming  extent. 

Tammany  Hall,  the  local  Democratic  organization 
of  New  York  City,  largely  recruited  its  membership 
from  immigrants,  and,  in  conferring  citizenship  on 
these,  the  Democratic  officials  winked  at  the  grossest 
violations  of  the  law.  In  opposition  to  these  a  new 
party  arose,  calling  itself  the  American  Republican. 
Its  growth  was  rapid.  In  two  years  it  elected  the 
Mayor  of  New  York.  The  movement  spread  to 
Philadelphia,  where  the  same  abuses  of  naturalization 

1  See  Great  Debates  in  American  History,  vol.  ix.,  chap.  xiv. 


i8oi]  Federalist  vs.  Republican  289 

existed.  By  1844  it  had  six  Representatives  in  Con 
gress  from  these  cities.  Then  its  delegation  suddenly 
dwindled  to  one  Representative  from  Philadelphia. 
It  now  took  the  name  of  Native  American.  How 
ever,  it  revived  again  after  the  Presidential  election  of 
1852,  when  the  Whigs  had  become  embittered  by  the 
overwhelming  defeat,  and  were  ready  to  form  any 
combination  which  would  oppose  the  triumphant 
Democracy. 

The  new  organization  had  the  form  of  a  secret 
fraternity.  Its  name  was  said  to  be  "The  Sons  of  76, " 
or  "The  Order  of  the  Star-Spangled  Banner,"  though 
its  members  were  sworn  not  to  reveal  this,  and  were 
instructed  to  reply  to  all  inquiries  concerning  the 
nature  of  the  society  by  the  negation,  "I  know  nothing 
about  it, "  whence  arose  the  popular  designation  of  the 
party  as  ' '  Know-Nothings. ' '  Its  purpose  was  apparent : 
the  restriction,  so  far  as  possible,  of  American  citizen 
ship  and  political  preferment  to  persons  born  in  the 
country,  with  especial  exclusion  of  Roman  Catholics, 
who,  since  the  famine  in  Ireland  and  the  revolutions  in 
continental  Europe,  now  formed  the  bulk  of  the  immi 
grants.  Its  favorite  countersign  was  an  order  which 
General  Washington  is  reported  (on  uncertain  authority) 
to  have  given  on  a  critical  occasion  during  the  Revolu 
tion:  "Put  none  but  Americans  on  guard  to-night." 

On  June  17,  1854,  in  the  same  year  in  which  the 
Republican  party  was  organized,  the  Know-Nothings 
formed  a  secret  constitution  under  the  name  of  the 
American  party,  the  contents  of  which  soon  transpired. 
It  proscribed  from  office-holding  not  only  all  foreign- 
born  persons,  but  also  native  Americans  who  were 
members  of  the  Roman  Catholic  Church,  to  whose 
hierarchical  tendencies  and  not  religious  beliefs  objec- 

19 


290  American  Debate  [1793- 

tion  was  made.  Justification  of  this  position  was  found 
in  the  assertion  of  the  leading  Roman  Catholic  papers 
of  the  right  of  the  Church  to  dictate  and  review  the 
acts  of  public  executives  and  representatives,  and  in 
the  demand  of  the  Church  dignitaries  that  Roman 
Catholic  parochial  schools  be  supported  by  public 
funds. 

The  Roman  Catholic  bishops  of  New  York  also 
demanded  that  Church  property  be  placed  in  their 
hands,  although  the  constitution  of  the  State  required 
that  all  religious  bodies  be  incorporated  and  their 
property  held  by  trustees.  This  demand  was  resisted 
by  a  number  of  Roman  Catholic  congregations,  and 
Cardinal  Bedini  was  sent  over  by  Pope  Pius  IX.  in 
1853  to  settle  the  difficulty.  Now  this  nuncio  had 
aided  in  suppressing  the  revolution  in  Bologna,  one 
of  the  patriots  being  executed.  Accordingly  he  was 
stigmatized  as  "Ugo  Bassi's  executioner, "  and  publicly 
insulted.  He  decided  in  favor  of  the  bishops,  and, 
when  the  trustees  legally  resisted  the  transfer  of  prop 
erty,  excommunicated  these,  whereupon  they  peti 
tioned  the  State  legislature,  complaining  that  the 
penalty  had  been  inflicted  on  them  because  of  their 
fidelity  to  the  law.  The  legislature  upheld  the  trustees, 
although  eight  years  afterwards  the  law  was  amended 
so  that  the  bishops  obtained  a  virtual  victory. 

In  the  State  elections  of  1854  the  American  party 
carried  Massachusetts  and  Delaware,  and  made  a 
strong  showing  in  New  York.  In  the  next  year  it 
gained  the  legislatures  of  New  Hampshire,  Rhode 
Island,  Connecticut,  New  York,  California,  Kentucky, 
and  Maryland,  and  was  beaten  by  only  small  majorities 
in  a  number  of  Southern  States.  Encouraged  by  this 
success  it  prepared  in  the  Presidential  contest  of  1856 


Federalist  vs.  Republican  291 

to  oppose  to  the  anti-slavery  principle  of  the  other 
new  party,  the  Republican,  that  of  nativism,  or  oppo 
sition  to  foreign  influence  in  American  politics.  On 
February  21,  1856,  in  secret  convention  at  Philadelphia, 
the  American  party  adopted  a  platform  containing 
the  following  planks : 


3.  Americans  must  rule  America,  and  to  this  end 
native-born  citizens  should  be  selected  for  all  Federal, 
State,  and  municipal  offices.  9.  A  continued  residence  of 
twenty-one  years  should  be  required  for  future  citizenship. 
12.  All  laws  should  be  enforced  until  repealed  or  decided 
unconstitutional.  13.  Opposition  to  Pierce1  s  administra 
tion  for  expulsion  of  members  of  the  party  from  office,  and 
for  reopening  sectional  strife  by  repealing  the  Missouri 
Compromise. 

On  February  22  the  convention  nominated  ex- 
President  Millard  Fillmore  [N.  Y.]  for  President, 
and  Andrew  J.  Donelson  [Tenn.]  for  Vice-President. 
These  nominations,  though  not  the  platform,  were 
ratified  by  the  Whig  convention  held  at  Baltimore 
on  September  17.  The  issue  of  the  party,  however, 
could  not  replace  that  of  slavery  in  the  minds  of  the 
people,  and  only  Maryland  cast  its  votes  for  the  Ameri 
can  candidates.  Nevertheless  the  party  retained 
several  Senators  and  from  fifteen  to  twenty-three 
Representatives  (largely  from  the  Border  States),  un 
til  it  was  annihilated  by  the  Civil  War.  Its  principles, 
however,  cropped  out  at  times  thereafter  in  minor 
political  organizations  such  as  the  American  Protective 
Association,  known  popularly  as  the  "A.  P.  A." 

The  new  party  formed  the  chief  subject  of  discus 
sion  in  the  House  during  the  session  of  1854-55.  The 


292  American  Debate  [1793- 

debate  was  inaugurated  with  an  attack  on  the  party 
by  William  T.  S.  Barry  [Miss.] '  on  December  18,  1854. 

This  association  appeals  to  that  which  is  strong  in 
every  country — that  feeling  of  nationality  without  which 
a  nation  cannot  exist  as  an  independent  government,  but 
which,  when  kindled  and  maddened,  may  destroy  all  that 
is  good  in  government,  and  subvert  the  very  principles 
upon  which  it  is  established.  Accordingly  the  loveliest 
influence  of  American  institutions  has  been  to  mollify  this 
prejudice  against  those  outside  our  borders,  and  to  bring 
the  whole  family  of  nations  into  a  common  brotherhood.  A 
nation's  place  in  civilization  may  be  judged  by  the  degree 
of  its  prejudice  and  hostility  to  foreigners. 

The  secret  and  unAmerican  nature  of  this  party  is 
justified  by  the  charge  that  there  are  secret  associations 
of  foreigners  whose  influence  must  be  counteracted  in  the 
same  manner.  If  the  charge  is  true,  then  it  certainly 
seems  a  strange  method  to  rebuke  the  error  by  forming 
other  associations  in  which  is  embodied  all  that  is  wrong 
in  those  we  condemn.  Rather  should  we  infuse  in  the 
minds  of  foreigners  broader  and  juster  views  of  the  duties 
of  citizenship.  Jefferson  has  said  that  "Little  is  to  be 
feared  from  error,  while  reason  is  left  free  to  combat  it." 

Secret  political  associations  may  be  necessary  in  oppressed 
countries,  but  not  in  free.  There  has  been  a  strong  re 
pugnance  to  exclusive  associations  in  this  country  from 
the  time  of  its  foundation.  The  Society  of  the  Cincinnati, 
formed  immediately  after  the  Revolution  by  men  fresh 
from  the  baptism  of  fire  and  blood  in  that  holy  struggle, 
has  decayed,  and  almost  expired,  under  the  distrust  felt  by 
the  American  people  of  such  organizations,  which  might 
be  wielded  to  the  detriment  of  the  public  liberty,  or  to 

'Mr.  Barry  was  a  lawyer.  This  was  his  only  term  in  Congress. 
He  presided  over  the  Mississippi  secession  convention  in  1861,  and 
afterwards  served  in  the  Confederate  army. 


i8oi]  Federalist  vs.  Republican  293 

serve  the  ambitious  purpose  of  men  desirous  of  political 
advancement. 

The  speaker  particularly  attacked  the  opposition 
by  the  party  to  the  Roman  Catholic  Church.  After 
remarking  the  inconsistency  in  admitting  to  its  member 
ship  Roman  Catholics  in  Louisiana,  where  the  Church 
was  too  strong  to  be  opposed,  and  intimating  that 
this  showed  that  the  real  purpose  of  the  new  organiza 
tion  was  merely  political  power,  he  said : 

It  will  excite  surprise  through  the  civilized  world  when 
it  becomes  known  that  the  people  of  this  country,  the  first 
to  practice  in  its  fullest  extent  the  great  Christian  doctrine 
of  toleration,  are  engaged  in  discussing  whether  or  not 
this  government  is  safe  while  it  continues.  How  can  we 
plead  to  the  Catholics  of  Europe  for  the  toleration  of 
Protestants  in  their  dominions?  The  arguments  by 
which  Know-Nothings  sustain  themselves  are  those  of  the 
Inquisition. 

Confederates  who  disfranchise  one  class  of  citizens 
soon  turn  upon  each  other — the  proscriptionist  of  yesterday 
is  the  proscribed  of  to-morrow.  Human  judgment  has 
recognized  the  inexorable  justice  of  the  sentence  which 
consigned  Robespierre  and  his  accomplices  to  the  same 
guillotine  to  which  they  had  condemned  so  many  thousand 
better  men. 

Persecution  strengthens  a  new  creed.  This  attempt 
at  proscription  will  do  more  to  spread  Catholicism  here 
than  all  the  treasures  of  Rome  or  all  the  Jesuitism  of  the 
cardinals. 

Now,  sir,  what  is  this  movement  at  the  North,  and 
who  are  engaged  in  it?  It  is  a  combination  of  all  the 
"isms"  of  that  section — Abolitionism,  Whigism,  Woman's 
Rightism,  Socialism,  Anti-Rentism.  Abolitionism  and 
Know-Nothingism  are  especially  akin;  one  is  a  crusade 
against  the  rights  of  the  State,  the  other,  against  the 


294  American  Debate  [1793- 

rights  of  individuals.  In  Massachusetts  the  Know- 
Nothings  elected  to  Congress  are  all  ultra  anti-slavery  men. x 
The  shrewdest,  however,  of  the  anti-slavery  men  refuse 
to  be  associated  with  this  party.  The  sagacious  Seward 
keeps  out  of  its  ranks.  He  could  not  fail  to  see  that  the 
whole  movement  will  be  short-lived,  and  that  any  public 
man  who  had  been  connected  with  it  would  be  damned  as 
effectually  as  the  Federalists  were  who  took  part  in  the 
Hartford  Convention.  This  new  "ism,"  disguise  it  as  you 
will,  is  the  old  Alien  law  under  a  new  disguise.  The  an 
cient  spirit  of  Federalism  has  insinuated  itself  in  the  new 
party.  It  is  like  Petruchio's  nether  wedding  garment, 
"a  thrice  turned  pair  of  old  breeches,"  betraying  the 
nakedness  it  was  intended  to  conceal. 

The  speaker  closed  with  a  contrasting  eulogy  of  the 
Democratic  party,  ever  enduring  through  success  and 
disaster,  as  "the  guardian  of  every  civil  and  po 
litical  right  of  every  individual  and  every  section." 
In  particular  he  mentioned  as  a  fundamental  principle 
of  Democracy  the  Virginia  Statute  of  Religious  Freedom 
in  which  Jefferson  declared : 

"All  men  shall  be  free  to  profess,  and  by  argument  to 
maintain,  their  opinions  in  matters  of  religion,  and  .  .  . 
the  same  shall,  in  no  wise,  diminish,  enlarge,  or  affect  their 
civil  capacities.'1 

On  the  same  day  Nathaniel  P.  Banks  [Mass.] 
defended  his  aspersed  party. 

Sketch  of  Banks.  Nathaniel  Prentiss  Banks  was  the 
son  of  a  superintendent  in  a  cotton  factory  at  Waltham, 
Mass.,  and  learned  the  trade  of  a  machinist.  He 
studied  at  night,  and  became  a  lecturer  at  an  early 
age.  After  a  short  editorship  of  a  local  paper,  he 

1  This  was  shown  shortly  afterwards  by  their  becoming  Republicans. 


i8oi]  Federalist  vs.  Republican  295 

became  a  lawyer,  and  was  sent  to  the  legislature, 
rising  to  be  Speaker.  In  1853  he  presided  over  the 
State  constitutional  convention.  In  the  same  year 
he  was  elected  to  Congress  by  a  Free-Soil — Democratic 
coalition.  During  the  term  he  became  a  Know-Nothing, 
and  was  reflected  by  that  party,  and  was  chosen  Speaker 
after  a  long  contest.  He  was  elected  to  the  next  term 
as  a  Republican.  From  1857  to  1859  he  was  Governor 
of  Massachusetts.  In  1860  he  succeeded  George  B. 
McClellan  as  president  of  the  Illinois  Central  railroad, 
but  resigned  the  office  at  the  outbreak  of  the  Civil  War. 
His  acts  as  a  general  in  this  war  belong  to  military 
history,  and  need  not  be  here  recited.  He  reentered 
Congress  in  1865,  and  with  the  exception  of  one  term, 
when  his  activity  in  behalf  of  Horace  Greeley  in  the 
Presidential  campaign  of  1872  caused  his  defeat,  he 
served  until  1877,  being  chairman  of  the  Committee 
on  Foreign  Relations. 

Mr.  Banks  excused  the  secrecy  of  the  new  party  on 
the  ground  that  it  was  the  only  way  in  which  success 
fully  to  oppose  what  we  would  now  call  "the  invisible 
government"  of  the  political  bosses  of  the  old  parties, 
acting  in  collusion. 

A  subterranean  passage  had  been  constructed  by  which 
men  could  pass  from  one  camp  to  another,  seeing  nobody, 
knowing  nobody,  and  saying  nothing  to  anybody. 

Michael  Walsh,  a  Tammany  Representative  from 
New  York  City,  the  wit  at  that  time  of  Congress,  here 
asked  if  the  "passage"  referred  to  had  any  connection 
with  the  "underground  railroad" — the  name  given  to 
the  Abolition  means  of  spiriting  away  slaves  from 
the  South  to  Canada.  When  the  laughter  occasioned 


296  American  Debate  1*793- 

by  this  shrewd  question  had  subsided,   Mr.   Banks 
replied : 

"It  has  not.  It  is  altogether  another  line  of  business. 
I  own  no  stock  in  that  corporation." 

He  continued,  declaring  that  Presidents  were  nomi 
nated,  if  not  elected,  by  secret  political  combinations, 
and  thus  the  government  was  taken  out  of  the  hands 
of  the  people.  He  also  inveighed  against  secret  di 
plomacy  as  the  great  instrument  of  world  oppression, 
and  in  this  connection  condemned  the  Administration 
for  withholding  the  proceedings  of  the  Ostend  confer 
ence,  then  in  session. z 

He  declared  that  Roman  Catholics  were  objected  to 
on  the  ground  not  of  their  religion,  but  their  allegiance 
in  temporal  matters  to  a  foreign  sovereign,  the  Pope 
of  Rome. 

If  our  foreign-born  citizens  consider  Pius  IX.  as  the 
supreme  head  of  secular  power,  and  think  that  he  can  in 
any  case  absolve  them  from  their  allegiance  to  State  or 
nation,  if  they  take  directions  from  their  spiritual  guides 
in  political  matters,  and  form  political  associations  of  their 
own,  they  force  upon  native-born  citizens  either  to  make 
similar  combinations  against  them,  or  to  abdicate  the  seats 
of  political  power. 

In  this  connection  he  told  the  story  of  an  Irish - 
American  politician,  who  in  the  Presidential  election 

1  This  was  a  meeting  of  James  Buchanan,  John  Y.  Mason,  August 
Belmont,  and  Pierre  Soule,  American  ministers  respectively  to  Great 
Britain,  France,  The  Hague,  and  Spain,  to  arrange  a  plan  for  the 
purchase  of  Cuba,  a  pro-slavery  project  of  the  Pierce  Administration. 
The  Know-Nothings  objected  to  Belmont  and  Soul6  as  not  being  native- 
born  Americans,  holding  that  the  patriotism  of  all  foreign-bora  ministers 
was  under  suspicion. 


i8oi]  Federalist  vs.  Republican  297 

of  1848,  though  a  Democratic  henchman,  prophesied 
the  victory  of  the  Whigs.  When  asked  the  reason 
for  his  opinion,  he  replied:  "I  am  a  Jesuit,  and  our 
instructions  were  to  shout  for  Cass,  but  to  vote  for 
Taylor." 

He  spoke  of  the  great  onrush  of  immigrants  bearing 
with  them  institutions  and  beliefs  alien  and  inimical 
to  our  own. 

Did  the  framers  of  the  Constitution  declare  that  foreigners 
had  a  right  to  participate  in  the  affairs  of  government? 
Not  at  all!  They  declared  that,  after  a  brief  period,  every 
President  must  be  a  native  citizen,  and  prescribed  nine 
years  of  citizenship  to  be  requisite  for  a  Senator,  and  seven 
for  a  Representative.  Citizenship  was  not  regarded  as  a 
right,  but  as  a  privilege.  Mr.  Gerry  said  that  he  wished 
"in  future  eligibility  might  be  confined  to  natives."  Many 
other  persons  held  the  same  view. 

While  our  party  denies  no  rights  to  a  minority,  it  demands 
the  rights  of  a  majority.  It  assumes  the  prerogative  of 
government  is  here  the  unquestioned  right  of  Americans. 
In  establishing  religious  freedom  we  neither  avoid  the 
responsibilities  nor  abdicate  the  duties  of  government.1 

1  For  other  debates  on  Citizenship  in  the  period  before  the  Civil  War, 
see  volumes  vii.  and  viii.  of  Great  Debates  in  American  History.  In 
volume  vii.,  chapter  i.,  deals  with  Naturalization;  and  chapter  v.  with 
Protection  of  Adopted  Citizens  (the  Koszta  Affair).  In  volume  viii., 
chapters  vii.  and  viii.  deal  with  Indian  Rights  in  connection  with  the 
Seminole  War  and  the  removal  of  the  Southern  tribes  to  the  West. 


CHAPTER  X 

NATIONAL  DEFENSE 
1803-1823 

The  Louisiana  Purchase — Opposition  to  Admission  of  Louisiana  as  a 
State  by  Josiah  Quincy,  3d — Sketch  of  Quincy — Sketch  of  Presi 
dent  Jefferson  by  William  Sampson — British  Orders  in  Council  and 
Napoleon's  Decrees — The  Non-Intercourse  Act — Opposed  by 
John  Randolph  [Va.] — Sketch  of  Randolph — Failure  of  the  Mon- 
roe-Pinkney  Treaty  with  Great  Britain — The  Embargo — Debate 
in  the  House:  in  Favor,  George  W.  Campbell  [Tenn.],  Opposed, 
Mr.  Randolph — Sketch  of  Campbell — Opposition  to  the  Embargo — 
Embargo  Repealed — British  Minister  David  M.  Erskine  Suspends 
Orders  in  Council — Act  Repudiated  by  Home  Government,  and 
Embargo  Restored  by  United  States — Napoleon  Revokes  Decrees, 
and  Embargo  against  France  is  Removed — New  Blood  in  Congress 
—Sketches  of  Henry  Clay  [Ky.J  and  John  C.  Calhoun  [S.  C.]— 
Debate  in  the  House  on  Preparations  for  War:  in  Favor,  Richard 
M.  Johnson  [Ky.],  Mr.  Calhoun;  Opposed,  Mr.  Randolph — 
Sketch  of  Johnson — Debate  on  War  Embargo:  in  Favor,  Mr.  Clay; 
Opposed,  Mr.  Quincy — Declaration  of  War  against  Great  Britain — • 
The  Hartford  Convention — Washington's  Farewell  Address  [i  796]— 
Debate  in  the  House  on  Recognition  of  Latin-American  Republics: 
in  Favor,  Mr.  Clay;  Opposed,  Robert  S.  Garnett  [Va.]— Sketch  of 
Garnett — Sketch  of  James  Monroe — The  Monroe  Doctrine. 

AS    has   been   already  noted,    President  Jefferson, 
who  had  been  the  chief  advocate  of  the  limita 
tion    of    Federal    powers    in    general,    and   executive 
powers  in  particular  to  those  explicitly  granted  in  the 
Constitution,  was,  in  the  case  of  the  Louisiana  Purchase, 

298 


1803-1823]  National  Defense  299 

compelled  by  circumstances  to  make  a  greater  extension 
of  these  powers  than  had  ever  before  been  attempted. 

The  Louisiana  Purchase.  In  1762  France  ceded 
Louisiana  to  Spain,  who  held  it  until  1800,  when  it 
was  retroceded  to  France,  in  exchange  for  European 
territory.  During  Spanish  possession  all  other  nations 
were  excluded  from  the  navigation  of  the  lower  Mis 
sissippi.  Now  from  the  beginning  of  the  Republic  all 
American  statesmen,  save  a  few  in  New  England  who 
selfishly  feared  the  preponderance  of  the  other  States 
in  the  Union  through  the  annexation  of  western  and 
southern  territory,  were  agreed  that  the  free  navigation 
of  the  terminus  of  the  great  central  river  system  was 
essential  to  our  national  development,  and,  indeed, 
existence.  During  the  Revolution,  John  Jay,  our 
Minister  to  Spain,  resolutely  refused  the  aid  which  that 
country  was  willing  to  give  us  on  condition  that  we 
relinquished  this  determination.  In  1786  the  same 
minister  was  compelled  to  be  satisfied  with  a  suspension 
of  free  navigation  of  the  river  for  twenty-five  years. 
Owing  to  the  pressure  brought  upon  the  Federal 
government  by  our  western  States,  Kentucky  and 
Tennessee,  through  proposed  expeditions  against  New 
Orleans  in  violation  of  international  law,  President 
Washington  in  the  summer  of  1795  sent  Thomas  Pinck- 
ney  as  an  envoy  to  Madrid  to  negotiate  a  treaty  which 
should  secure  free  navigation  at  once.  He  arrived  at  a 
favorable  time,  Spain  having  just  been  compelled  by 
arms  to  make  a  treaty  of  peace  with  France.  After 
long  negotiations  Pinckney  accomplished  his  mission  by 
a  treaty,  signed  in  October,  between  Spain  and  the 
United  States,  which  made  navigation  free  to  both 
parties,  but  to  them  alone.  New  Orleans  was  made  a 
free  port  and  place  of  deposit  of  merchandise  to  our 


300  American  Debate  [1803- 

citizens  for  three  years,  with  promise  of  a  renewal  of  the 
privilege  or  the  establishment  of  a  new  free  port  near 
by.  The  treaty  was  executed  in  1798. 

When  Louisiana  was  receded  to  France  in  1800,  the 
United  States  was  alarmed  at  the  rumor  that  Napoleon 
intended  to  establish  there  a  strong  imperial  government 
which  would  effectually  check  the  western  development 
of  the  Republic.  This  fear  contributed  greatly  to  the 
election  of  a  Republican  Congress  and  President,  the 
New  England  influence  in  the  Federalist  party  being 
antipathetic  to  the  extension  of  territory. 

President  Jefferson  was  occupied  for  the  first  year  of 
his  administration  in  reforming  domestic  affairs  in  ac 
cordance  with  Republican  principles.  Soon  after  the 
beginning  of  the  second  year  he  turned  his  attention 
to  the  pressing  foreign  question.  On  April  18,  1802,  he 
wrote  to  Robert  R.  Livingston,  minister  to  France, 
directing  him  to  inquire  into  the  nature  of  the  cession 
of  Louisiana.  Said  Jefferson 

"It  [the  cession]  completely  reverses  all  the  political 
relations  of  the  United  States,  and  will  form  a  new  epoch 
in  our  political  course.  There  is  on  the  globe  one  single 
spot  the  possessor  of  which  is  our  natural  and  habitual 
enemy.  It  is  New  Orleans,  through  which  the  products 
of  three  eighths  of  our  territory  must  pass  to  market. 
France,  placing  herself  in  that  door,  .  .  .  seals  the  union 
of  two  nations  [Great  Britain  and  the  United  States]  who 
in  conjunction  can  maintain  exclusive  possession  of  the 
ocean." 

On  October  2,  1802,  the  place  of  deposit  for  American 
merchandise  was  closed  by  the  Intendant,  the  Spanish 
officer  placed  in  charge  of  the  territory  until  the 
cession  was  consummated.  This  act  created  great 


1823]  National  Defense  301 

indignation  among  the  western  American  traders,  who 
clamored  for  relief.  The  President  determined  to  buy 
New  Orleans  from  its  new  owners,  and  procured  from 
Congress  an  appropriation  of  $2,000,000.  for  this  pur 
pose.  He  appointed  James  Monroe  as  special  envoy  to 
act  with  Minister  Livingston  in  negotiating  the  purchase 
with  Napoleon,  and  with  Charles  Pinckney,  minister 
to  Spain,  to  get  the  necessary  renunciation  of  the 
lingering  claims  of  that  country  to  the  city. 

The  Federalists,  beaten  in  their  opposition  to  the 
domestic  policy  of  the  Administration,  grasped  at  the 
delay  in  the  negotiations  as  an  opportunity  to  regain 
popularity  by  presenting  themselves  as  the  patriotic 
party  in  foreign  affairs,  and  they  endeavored  in  the 
Senate,  where  their  power  was  concentrated,  to  compel 
the  President  to  seize  the  territory  by  force. x  However, 
the  West  and  the  South  were  willing  to  trust  their 
beloved  leader  for  the  peaceful  accomplishment  of  the 
annexation,  and  the  Federalist  proposition  was  thereby 
demonstrated  to  be  as  insincere  as  it  was  partisan. 

The  European  negotiations  were  finally  completed 
on  April  30,  1803,  when  a  treaty  was  signed,  whereby 
the  whole  territory  of  Louisiana,  including  the  vast 
region  between  the  Mississippi  on  the  east,  and  Texas 
and  the  Rocky  Mountains  on  the  west,  was  transferred 
to  the  sovereignty  of  the  United  States  for  $15,000,000., 
$3,75O,ooo.  of  this  being  set  off  to  be  paid  American 
citizens  holding  claims  against  France  for  depredations 
to  commerce.2 

1  For  a  debate  in  the  Senate  on  this  issue,  Conquest  or  Purchase, 
which  occurred  on  February  16-25,  1803,  see  Great  Debates  in  American 
History,  vol.  ii.,  p.  90. 

2  For  many  years  after  this  the  settlement  of  these  "French  spoli 
ation  claims"  arose  again  and  again  in  Congress,  creating  extended 
discussions. 


302  American  Debate  [1803- 

Napoleon  ignored  the  rights  of  Spain  in  making  this 
treaty,  which  replenished  his  coffers  at  a  time  when  he 
was  desperately  in  need  of  funds  to  prosecute  his 
designs  of  European  conquest.  Spain  at  once  protested 
against  the  transaction,  for  she  saw  that  Florida,  now 
isolated,  would  soon  fall  under  American  dominion.1 

The  Federalists  in  the  Senate  seized  upon  Spain's 
protest  as  a  reason  against  ratification  of  the  treaty, 
prophesying  that  the  cloud  upon  our  title  would  surely 
loom  up  into  a  vast  storm  of  war  with  the  injured 
country.  The  force  of  this  argument,  however,  was 
dissipated  by  the  one  which  they  had  previously  made 
in  urging  the  forcible  seizure  of  New  Orleans,  while  it 
was  yet  in  possession  of  "the  sluggish  Spaniard  slumber 
ing  on  his  post,"  and  before  it  was  occupied  by  "the 
vigilant  French  grenadier." 

The  Republicans  were  exultant  over  the  treaty, 
exceeding  as  it  did  their  wildest  expectations,  and  hailed 
it  as  the  greatest  achievement  yet  accomplished  by  the 
nation — one  that  assured  for  all  time  the  growth  as 
well  as  the  integrity  of  the  Union.  The  effect  on  the 
Republican  party  was  not  the  least  of  the  nationalizing 
influences  of  the  acquisition.  Jefferson's  administra 
tion  and  those  which  succeeded  it  became  strongly 
Union  in  sentiment,  while  the  Federalist  Opposition 
resorted  to  sectional  policies,  and  even  adopted  the 
theory  of  State  rights  (Nullification)  which  the  Repub 
licans  began  conveniently  to  forget  they  had  ever 
upheld.  It  was  known  that  the  Federalist  Senators 
would  attack  the  constitutionality  of  the  treaty. 
Accordingly  Jefferson  admitted  that  his  executive 

1  Florida  was  ceded  by  Spain  to  the  United  States  in  1819  for  the 
sum  of  $5,000,000,  all  of  which  was  paid  to  American  claimants  against 
Spain. 


1823]  National  Defense  303 

action  was  unauthorized,  but  that  the  Senate,  by 
ratifying  the  treaty,  and  the  people,  the  real  sovereign, 
by  endorsing  the  ratification,  would  "cure"  all  irregu 
larity.  He  said,  in  a  letter  to  Senator  Breckinridge  on 
August  12,  1803: 

"It  is  the  case  of  a  guardian  investing  the  money  of  his 
ward  in  purchasing  an  important  adjacent  territory,  and 
saying  to  him  when  of  age,  '  I  did  this  for  your  good ;  .  .  . 
you  may  disavow  me  and  I  must  get  out  of  the  scrape  as  I 
can.  I  thought  it  my  duty  to  risk  myself  for  you.* " 

This  policy  was  adopted  by  the  Republican  Senators, 
and  carried  out  with  great  skill.  Fortunately  the  first 
Federalist  opponent  of  the  treaty  presented  as  his  chief 
argument,  "the  cloud  on  the  title."  This  being  easily 
disposed  of,  in  the  manner  already  presented,  the 
Opposition  was  debarred  from  bringing  forward  as  a 
fundamental  objection  that  of  unconstitutionality, 
especially  as  the  Republicans,  with  seeming  mag 
nanimity  admitted  that  in  minor  points  (though  really 
major)  the  action  of  the  executive  was  unconstitutional, 
and  appealed  to  the  patriotism  of  the  Opposition  to 
remedy  the  flaw  in  the  manner  suggested  by  the 
President.  This  won  over  all  but  the  extreme  Federalist 
partisans,  and  the  treaty  was  ratified  on  November  3, 
1803,  by  twenty-six  votes  to  five.1  The  country 
enthusiastically  endorsed  and  applauded  the  Senate's 
action. 

However,  there  were  a  few  Federalists,  men  who 
would  not  admit  defeat,  who  never  became  reconciled 
to  expansion  of  national  territory.  Chief  of  these  was 
Josiah  Quincy,  3d  [Mass.],  who  was  a  Representative 

1  For  the  Senate  debate  on  this  issue  of  constitutionality,  occurring 
November  3,  1803,  see  Great  Debates  in  American  History,  vol.  ii.,  p.  104. 


304  American  Debate  [1803- 

at  the  time  the  bill  was  proposed  to  admit  Louisiana 
into  the  Union — an  inevitable  consequence  of  the 
Purchase — and  who  opposed  it  to  the  extent  of  threaten 
ing  the  secession  of  the  New  England  States  if  the  bill 
should  pass. 

Sketch  of  Quincy.  Josiah  Quincy,  the  third  of  that 
name,  and  the  son  of  the  fiery  orator  who  resisted  the 
British  tea-tax,  for  a  time  after  his  graduation  from 
Harvard  divided  his  time  between  law  and  general 
study.  At  the  age  of  twenty-eight  he  came  into  public 
notice  by  a  display  of  eloquence  akin  to  that  of  his 
father  at  an  Independence  Day  celebration.  There 
upon  the  Federalists  nominated  him  for  Congress.  It 
was,  however,  before  the  day  of  the  young  man  in 
national  politics,  and  the  jeers  of  the  Republicans, 
calling  for  a  cradle  to  rock  him  in,  accomplished  his 
defeat.  Six  years  later,  however,  after  service  in  the 
State  Senate,  in  which  he  urged  the  recommendation 
that  the  Constitution  be  amended  to  drop  the  "three- 
fifths  clause"  relating  to  slave  representation  in 
Congress,  he  achieved  the  coveted  seat.  There  he 
became  an  extreme  partisan,  a  member  of  the  "Essex 
junto"  which  opposed  every  policy  of  the  Administra 
tion,  and  rallied  in  a  hopeless  stand  against  Republican 
principles  the  dwindling  numbers  of  the  defeated  party 
around  the  Federalist  standard,  even  refusing  to  make 
alliance  with  John  Randolph's  anti-Administration 
faction,  the  so-called  "Quids."  Quincy,  in  particular, 
refused  to  accept  as  final  any  triumph  of  the  Adminis 
tration.  On  January  4,  1811,  he  used  this  violent 
language  against  the  admission  of  Louisiana: 

"Why,  sir,  I  have  already  heard  of  six  States,  and  some 
say  there  will  be  at  no  great  distance  of  time  more  [to  be 


1823]  National  Defense  305 

carved  out  of  the  Purchase  and  admitted  into  the  Union]. 
I  have  also  heard  that  the  mouth  of  the  Ohio  will  be  far 
to  the  east  of  the  contemplated  empire.  ...  It  is  im 
possible  such  a  power  should  be  granted.  It  was  not  for 
these  men  that  our  fathers  fought.  It  was  not  for  them  this 
Constitution  was  adopted.  You  have  no  authority  to  throw 
the  rights  and  liberties  of  the  people  into  hotch-pot  with 
the  wild  men  on  the  Missouri,  or  with  the  mixed,  though 
more  respectable  race  of  Hispano-Gallic-Americans  who 
bask  on  the  sands  in  the  mouth  of  the  Mississippi.  .  .  . 
I  am  compelled  to  declare  it  as  my  deliberate  opinion  that, 
if  this  bill  passes,  the  bonds  of  the  Union  are  virtually 
dissolved;  that  the  States  which  compose  it  are  free  from 
their  moral  obligations;  and  that,  as  it  will  be  the  right  of 
all,  so  it  will  be  the  duty  of  some,  to  prepare  definitely  for  a 
separation — amicably  if  they  can;  violently  if  they  must."1 

The  bill  was  passed,  yet  Quincy's  threat  was  not 
executed — a  proof  of  his  disqualification  as  a  statesman, 
in  whom  prescience  is  a  crowning  active  element,  and 
reserve,  especially  in  the  acceptance  of  defeat,  an 
essential  passive  attribute. 

Quincy's  later  career  will  shortly  develop  in  these 
pages. 

Jefferson's  Administration.  Of  all  administrations 
in  American  history  that  of  Thomas  Jefferson  was  most 
successful  in  internal  policy,  and  was  the  first  thoroughly 
to  vindicate  to  the  world  the  power  of  an  executive 
scrupulously  obeying  the  will  of  the  people  as  expressed 
in  their  legislature.  As  evidence  of  this,  as  well  as  be 
cause  it  presents  an  intimate  and  humorous  character 
study  of  Jefferson,  and  of  the  attitude  toward  him  of 
the  American  people,  the  following  passage  from  the 

1  This,  says  the  historian  Richard  Hildreth,  was  "  the  first  announce 
ment  on  the  floor  of  Congress  of  the  doctrine  of  secession. " 
to 


306  American  Debate  [1803- 

Memoirs  of  William  Sampson  (New  York,  1807)  is  in 
point.  Sampson  was  an  Irish  patriot,  who,  after  exile 
in  Europe,  finally  obtained  asylum  in  America,  where 
he  published  his  account  of  his  troubles  with  the  British 
government.  At  the  close  he  wrote  "A  Few  Observa 
tions  of  the  State  of  Manners,  etc.,  in  America"  in  the 
form  of  a  satirical  letter  to  Lord  Spencer,  the  British 
Home  Secretary,  in  which  the  passage  referred  to 
appears. x 

"  As  to  the  government :  at  the  head  of  it  is  an  old  country 
philosopher.  I  wish  your  lordship  could  get  a  sight  of  one 
of  his  shoes,  with  quarters  up  to  his  ankles,  and  tied  with 
leather  thongs.  He  has  neither  chamberlain  nor  vice- 
chamberlain,  groom  of  the  stole  nor  of  the  bed-chamber, 
master  of  the  ceremonies,  nor  gentleman-usher  of  the  privy- 
chamber,  nor  black  rod,  nor  groom,  nor  page  of  the  privy- 
chamber,  nor  page  of  the  back  stairs,  nor  messenger  to  his 
robes — he  has  no  robes — nothing  but  red  breeches,  which 
are  now  a  jest  and  a  threadbare  one.2  .  .  .  He  will  talk 
with  anybody,  like  the  good-natured  Vicar  of  Wakefield. 
If  the  stranger  talks  better  than  him,  he  is  willing  to  learn ; 
if  he  talks  better,  he  is  willing  the  stranger  should  profit. 
He  is  a  simple  gentleman  every  way,  and  keeps  his  own 
conscience,  and  .  .  .  pays  his  own  debts,  and  the  nation's 
debts,  and  has  hoarded  up  eight  millions  and  a  half  of  dol 
lars  in  the  treasury.  Your  lordship  will  smile  at  such  an 
oddity. 

1  The  copy  of  the  Memoirs  from  which  the  extract  has  been  taken 
bears  the  inscription,  "Thomas  Jefferson's  Book,  Monticello,  1813," 
indicating  that  Sampson's  pen  picture  was  not  at  all  unpleasing  to  its 
subject.    The  owner  of  the  copy  is  Professor  Glanville  Terrell  of  the 
University  of  Kentucky. 

2  Jefferson  returned  from  his  ministry  in  France  wearing  this  garment, 
and  affording  the  Federalist  wits  for  many  years  thereafter  a  subject  for 
gibes  against  his  Republican  simplicity. 


1823]  National  Defense  307 

"We  do  all  we  can  to  shake  him — we  do  all  we  can  to  vex 
him — we  do  all  we  can  to  remove  him.  He  is  like  a  wise  old 
Dervise.  He  will  not  be  shaken — he  will  not  be  vexed — 
he  will  not  be  moved.  If  he  gets  up,  we  say  he  is  too  tall. 
If  he  sits  down,  we  say  he  is  too  short.  If  we  think  he  will  go 
to  war,  we  say  he  is  bloody.  If  we  think  he  is  for  peace,  we 
say  he  is  a  coward.  If  he  makes  a  purchase,  we  say  he 
ought  to  take  it  by  force.  If  he  will  not  persecute,  we  say 
he  has  no  energy.  If  he  executes  the  law,  we  say  he  is  a 
tyrant. — I  think,  my  lord,  with  great  deference,  that  a  good 
London  quarto  might  be  written  and  thrown  at  his  head.1 
He  has  no  guards  nor  battle-axes,  and  dodges  all  alone 
upon  his  old  horse,  from  the  President's  house  to  the  CAPI 
TOL.  There  might  be  an  engraving  to  shew  him  hitching  his 
bridle  to  a  peg."2 

In  external  policy,  however,  the  administration  of 
Jefferson,  and  that  of  Madison,  based  upon  the  same 
principles,  which  followed  it,  were,  by  far,  the  most 
disastrous  in  our  history,  being  in  special  contrast  in 
this  respect  to  the  preceding  administration  of  John 
Adams.  Success  at  home  and  failure  abroad  would 
seem  to  be  the  inevitable  results  of  a  pure  democratic 
government.  This  arises  from  the  natural  antipathy  of 
war  and  peace,  and  the  opposition  in  mental  attitude 
of  the  leaders  who  conduct  these.  It  is  an  efficient 
and  apparently  necessary  policy  in  time  of  threatened 
war  to  override  the  rights  and  liberties  of  individuals 
in  order  to  preserve  the  integrity  of  the  nation,  and,  as 
a  corollary,  an  arbitrary,  aristocratic  temper  in  the 

1  A  reference  to  an  anti- American  book  by  a  Mr.  Parkinson,  published 
about  this  time  on  the  author's  return  from  a  tour  of  the  United  States. 

2  A  reference  to  the  story  that  Jefferson  had  ridden  in  this  fashion  to 
the  Capitol  on  the  day  of  his  inauguration,  and,  because  of  the  early 
date  of  the  reference,  a  corroboration  of  the  story,  which  has  been 
denied  by  historians. 


3o8  American  Debate 

executive  would  seem  to  be  desirable.  From  this  it 
would  appear  that  the  ideal  head  of  a  democracy  would 
be  a  man  of  peace  devoted  to  securing  the  utmost 
freedom  of  his  people  in  their  various  industries  and 
interests  and  the  exercise  of  their  civil  rights,  but  who 
will  greatly  modify,  or  even  reverse,  his  policy  in  the 
event  of  civil  rebellion  or  foreign  aggression.  Not  to 
speak  of  later  Presidents  upon  whom  history  has  not 
yet  passed  final  verdict,  such  an  executive  was  Abraham 
Lincoln,  a  man  of  Quaker  blood  and  instincts,  who 
nevertheless  strained  his  constitutional  powers  to  the 
utmost  (in  some  instances  to  the  breaking  point)  in 
order  to  suppress  the  Great  Rebellion. x 

The  Non-Intercourse  Act.  While  war  had  been 
formally  declared  between  Great  Britain  and  France 
in  1803,  it  was  not  until  1805  that  hostilities  really 
broke  out.  Realizing  that  the  power  of  Napoleon, 
supreme  on  the  land,  must  be  broken  on  the  sea,  and 
that,  not  only  by  sinking  her  armed  naval  force,  but 
by  the  still  more  effective  act  of  sweeping  her  merchant 

1  Debaters  should  bear  in  mind  this  irreconcilable  but  not  uncom- 
promisable  "conflict  of  Ormuzd  and  Ahriman"  in  the  conduct  of  other 
controversies  than  "Pacifism  vs.  Preparedness."  Thus  in  the  question 
of  "Free  Trade  vs.  Protection,"  owing  to  an  abnormal  condition  in  the 
country  in  view  of  a  late  war  or  a  prospective  one,  an  otherwise  im 
proper  policy  may  be  the  correct  one.  It  may  be  cited  on  this  point  that 
in  1816  John  C.  Calhoun,  in  theory  an  absolute  free-trader,  introduced, 
as  chairman  of  the  Ways  and  Means  committee,  in  the  House  of 
Representatives  the  first  tariff  act  that  was  protective  in  practical 
operation,  and  that  he  did  this  in  order  to  preserve  manufacturing 
enterprises  which  had  sprung  up  under  the  abnormal  "protection"  of 
the  Second  War  with  Great  Britain.  It  is  well  to  be  ardent  in  a  cause, 
but  not  to  the  point  of  despising  opposing  principles.  Otherwise  one 
may  later  be  compelled  to  make  the  confession  of  Lord  Melbourne,  who, 
referring  to  a  certain  bill,  said:  "All  the  sensible  men  were  on  one 
side,  and  all  the  damned  fools  on  the  other.  And,  egad,  sir,  the  damned 
fools  were  right!" 


18231  National  Defense  309 

marine  from  the  ocean,  and  further  "starving  her  out" 
by  preventing  supplies  reaching  her  from  her  colonies 
and  elsewhere  in  neutral  bottoms,  Great  Britain  exerted 
all  her  sea-power  to  this  end,  deliberately  violating  the 
rights  of  neutrals  which  had  been  admitted  and  in  part 
championed  by  herself. 

In  May,  1805,  the  British  Court  of  Appeals,  in  the 
case  of  the  captured  American  vessel  Essex,  reversed 
the  former  rule  of  the  British  admiralty  courts,  namely, 
that  in  time  of  war  "landing  goods  and  paying  duties 
in  a  neutral  country  breaks  the  continuity  of  the 
voyage,  and  so  legalizes  the  trade, "  and  it  held  that 
such  transshipment,  if  evidently  fraudulent,  did  not 
absolve  the  vessel  from  capture  and  condemnation. 
As  a  result  of  this  decision  British  warships  and  priva 
teers  began  to  prey  on  American  vessels  carrying 
through  neutral  countries  the  trade  between  France 
and  her  colonies.  Also  the  old  practice  of  impressing 
American  seamen  was  put  again  in  force. 

President  Jefferson  protested  in  vain  against  this 
"interpolation  of  new  principles  in  the  law  of  nations, " 
and  the  impressment  of  our  seamen,  and,  on  consultation 
with  James  Madison,  Secretary  of  State,  with  whom 
commercial  retaliation  was  a  favorite  weapon  to  oppose 
foreign  aggressions  on  our  commerce,1  proposed  to 


1  In  January,  1794,  Madison,  then  the  Republican  leader  of  the  House 
of  Representatives,  at  the  suggestion  of  Jefferson,  the  Secretary  of  State, 
in  his  Report  on  American  Commerce,  secured  the  passage  of  "Com 
mercial  Resolutions"  laying  additional  duties  on  manufactures  of 
nations  which  had  no  commercial  treaties  with  us.  Great  Britain  was 
particularly  aimed  at,  and  when,  during  the  debate  on  the  Resolutions, 
she  seized  certain  American  vessels  trading  with  the  French  West 
Indies,  the  imposition  was  laid  aside  for  the  more  drastic  method  of  an 
embargo.  The  obnoxious  practice  was  quickly  abandoned  by  Great 
Britain,  and  the  embargo  was  removed. 


310  American  Debate 

Congress  a  "non-intercourse  act, "  against  Great  Britain 
until  the  differences  with  that  country  were  settled. 

The  Senate  and  the  House  passed  the  act  by  large 
majorities,  most  of  the  minority  being  New  England 
members.  John  Randolph  [Va.],  who  out-Catoed  Cato 
in  that  the  doomed  as  well  as  the  defeated  cause  was 
pleasing  to  him,  was,  however,  the  leader  of  opposition 
to  the  measure. 

Sketch  of  Randolph.  John  Randolph,  called  "of 
Roanoke"  to  distinguish  him  from  other  members  of 
his  famous  family  with  the  same  Christian  name,  was 
the  great-grandson  of  William  Randolph  who  emigrated 
from  England  to  Virginia  in  1674  and  became  the  owner 
of  a  great  plantation  on  the  James  River.  He  was 
seventh  in  descent  from  Pocahontas,  the  Indian  princess 
who  married  John  Rolfe,  and  often  in  his  speeches 
proudly  alluded  to  his  Indian  blood — especially  in 
excusing  his  high  temper.  His  father  died  when  the 
son  was  two  years  old,  leaving  him  in  trust  a  great 
landed  estate.  When  John  was  fifteen  years  of  age  his 
mother,  a  lady  of  rare  intelligence,  married  St.  George 
Tucker,  of  similar  character.  The  lad's  education  was 
acquired  from  the  two.  From  his  mother,  who  pos 
sessed  a  voice  of  great  sweetness,  he  learned  to  recite 
with  power  and  feeling — an  accomplishment  which 
enabled  him  to  sway  his  audiences  at  will  when  he 
became  a  public  speaker.  The  conjoined  Tucker  and 
Randolph  libraries  supplied  him  with  the  best  books  to 
be  found  in  the  colonies,  and  he  became  a  diligent 
reader,  storing  his  mind  with  historical  and  literary 
allusions  which  later  he  effectively  used  on  the  floor  of 
Congress — too  copiously,  however,  at  times,  since  these 
excursions  tempted  him  far  afield  from  the  course  of 
his  argument.  He  studied  for  brief  periods  at  a  grammar 


1823]  National  Defense  311 

school  connected  with  William  and  Mary,  and  at 
Princeton  and  Columbia  colleges.  His  tendency  toward 
opposition  of  authority  and  accepted  opinion  was 
shown  while  a  student  in  Columbia  by  his  remark  on  the 
occasion  of  the  establishment  of  the  Federal  government 
in  New  York,  the  speeches  of  which  he  heard : 

"I  saw  what  Washington  did  not  see — but  two  other 
men  in  Virginia  saw  it,  George  Mason  and  Patrick  Henry — 
the  poison  under  the  wings"  [of  the  Constitution]. 

A  year  later  the  young  man  studied  law  at  Philadel 
phia  under  his  cousin,  Attorney-General  Edmund 
Randolph.  Here  he  seems  to  have  indulged  in  dissi 
pation,  leading  to  the  breaking  of  her  engagement  to 
marry  him  by  a  famous  Virginia  beauty,  Maria  Ward, 
who  shortly  afterwards  wedded  Peyton  Randolph,  the 
son  of  the  Attorney-General.  He  then  came  under  the 
influence  of  religion.  Indeed,  throughout  his  life,  he 
was  distracted  by  conflicting  opinions  and  impulses. 
In  theory  he  was  a  democrat ;  in  personal  acts  an  aristo 
crat.  The  French  Republic  was  his  beau  ideal  of  a 
government,  and  Burke,  its  greatest  opponent,  his 
pattern  of  statesmanship.  He  was  pugnacious  in 
temper,  quarrelsome  in  debate,  and  ever  ready  to 
support  his  words  on  the  duelling  field,  and  yet  he  hated 
war  to  the  extreme  that  he  would  have  his  country  bow 
to  any  indignity  to  avoid  it.  He  built  up  a  small  party 
of  his  own  largely  in  defense  of  slavery,  yet  his  utter 
ances  against  that  institution  exceeded  even  those  of 
Jefferson,  and  he  liberated  his  slaves  in  his  will  on  the 
ground  that  they  were  as  much  entitled  to  freedom  as 
himself. 

He  lived  on  his  estate  in  Virginia  from  1795  to  1799, 
when  he  achieved  a  sudden  and  great  reputation  by  a 


312  American  Debate  [1803- 

powerful  speech  in  defense  of  the  Virginia  Resolutions 
against  Patrick  Henry's  denunciation  of  them.  The 
result  was  that  he  was  sent  to  Congress,  where  he  was 
retained  by  his  admiring  constituents,  in  despite  of  his 
frequent  changes  of  opinion  on  public  policies,  until 
1813,  when  his  opposition  to  President  Madison  in 
the  conduct  of  the  Second  War  with  Great  Britain  at 
last  destroyed  their  loyalty  to  him,  and  he  failed  of 
reelection. 

In  his  first  speech  in  the  House  (January  10,  1800) 
in  support  of  a  resolution  to  reduce  the  army,  Randolph 
indicated  what  his  course  in  Congress  would  be  by 
calling  all  men  in  the  profession  of  arms  "mercenaries, " 
and  so  subjecting  himself  to  public  insult  by  army 
officers.  Thereupon  he  wrote  to  the  President  a  letter 
of  protest  which  he  addressed  to  "Mr. "  Adams,  and 
signed,  "your  fellow-citizen,  John  Randolph."  "His 
Excellency'*  sent  the  letter  to  the  House,  which  dis 
cussed  it  as  a  "breach  of  privilege"  without  reaching  a 
decision  upon  it. 

On  the  accession  to  the  Presidency  of  his  cousin, 
Thomas  Jefferson,  Randolph  became  Republican  leader 
of  the  House,  receiving  the  important  appointment  of 
chairman  of  the  Ways  and  Means  committee.  For  a 
time  he  was  loyal  to  the  Administration,  upholding  the 
Louisiana  Purchase  as  constitutional  when  even  the 
President  did  not  do  so.  Then  his  native  combativeness, 
and,  it  must  be  said,  his  sincere  sense  of  duty  to  the 
public,  caused  him  to  attack  government  abuses,  and 
to  endeavor  to  punish  the  guilty  parties.  A  notable 
instance  of  this  was  his  exposure  of  the  great  "Yazoo 
Fraud  "  of  1805,  a  scandalous  transaction  in  government 
land  in  the  pioneer  territory  of  Mississippi  in  which  a 
ring  of  officers  in  the  government  and  members  of 


1823]  National  Defense  3J3 

Congress  were  involved.  Owing  to  his  opposition  the 
"deal"  could  be  consummated  in  Congress  only  in  his 
absence.  Randolph  became  an  admired  character 
throughout  the  Union  for  his  bold  and  public-spirited 
stand  in  the  matter,  of  which  popularity  he  thereafter 
took  fair  advantage  by  branding  on  every  occasion  the 
men  connected  with  the  fraud  as  infamous,  and  unfair 
advantage  by  suggesting  that  other  men  whom  he  was 
opposing  for  other  reasons  were  also  smirched  with  the 
scandal.  He  caused  Associate- Justice  Samuel  Chase 
to  be  impeached  for  the  expression  of  violent  partisan 
ship  off  the  Supreme  bench  which  showed  that  he  was 
unfit  for  position  upon  it,  and  he  conducted  the  prosecu 
tion,  which,  though  unsuccessful,  gained  a  moral  victory 
in  that  a  majority  of  the  High  Court  of  Impeachment, 
though  not  the  requisite  two  thirds,  supported  the 
charge. 

Randolph  was  returned  to  Congress  in  1815.  His 
ideal  country  was  now  England,  and  it  would  seem  that 
he  had  dreams  of  reestablishing  his  State  as  the  "Old 
Dominion"  with  institutions  modeled  on  the  aristocra 
tic  plan  of  the  land  from  which  it  had  revolted.  In  any 
event  he  set  to  work  to  form  a  State-rights  party  by 
appealing  to  the  fears  of  the  Southerners  that  their 
domestic  institution  of  slavery  was  in  danger  on  account 
of  the  growing  abolition  sentiment  of  the  North.  The 
party  was  small,  but  loyal  to  its  leader  in  face  of  the  ri 
dicule  cast  upon  it  by  the  name  given  it  of  the  "  Quids," 
suggested  by  his  own  phrase  tertium  quid  used  in 
justifying  the  formation  of  a  third  party  opposed  to 
the  dominant  ones.  Much  as  he  opposed  the  anti- 
slavery  men  of  the  North,  he  respected  them,  reserving 
his  scorn  for  "the  Northern  men  with  Southern  prin 
ciples,"  whom  he  denominated  "dough-faces." 


314  American  Debate  [1803- 

In  1825  he  was  sent  up  from  the  House  to  the  Senate 
to  fill  a  two  years'  vacancy.  He  was  not  returned  at 
the  next  election,  at  which  there  was  great  relief  in  that 
dignified  "upper  house,"  whose  decorum  he  was  con 
tinually  breaking,  since  he  seemed  anxious  to  support 
his  reputation  acquired  in  the  lower  chamber  as  a 
political  Ishmaelite  by  violent  abuse  of  every  eminent 
Senator.  Thus  he  denounced  the  coalition  of  John 
Quincy  Adams  and  Henry  Clay,  whereby  Adams  (who 
had  received  a  minority  vote  in  the  Electoral  College 
for  President,  where  Jackson  had  the  most  ballots,  but 
not  sufficient  to  elect  him)  secured  the  coveted  seat 
by  vote  of  the  House  of  Representatives,  and  Clay  was 
at  once  appointed  Secretary  of  State  by  the  new  Execu 
tive.  Speaking  of  the  manner  in  which  his  opposition 
to  an  Administration  measure,  representation  of  the 
United  States  at  a  Pan-American  Congress  to  be  held 
at  Panama,  had  been  overridden  by  the  Senate,  Ran 
dolph  said: 

"I  was  defeated,  horse,  foot,  and  dragoons — cut  up — 
and  clean  broke  down — by  the  coalition  of  Blifil  and  Black 
George1 — by  the  combination  unheard  of  till  then,  of  the 
puritan  with  the  blackleg." 

It  being  reported  to  Clay  that  Randolph  had  charged 
him  with  forging  public  documents,  he  challenged  him 
to  a  duel.  Senator  Benton  who  was  Randolph's  second, 
and  very  proud  to  be  connected  with  such  a  "high- 
toned"  affair,  described  the  encounter  that  followed  in 
his  Thirty  Years'  View.  Neither  contestant  was 
wounded  at  the  first  fire;  at  the  second  Randolph 
discharged  his  pistol  in  the  air,  and  had  the  skirt  of  his 

1  Characters  in  Henry  Fielding's  novel  Tom  Jones:  "Blifil"  referred 
to  President  Adams;  "Black  George"  to  Secretary  Clay. 


1823]  National  Defense  315 

coat  ripped  by  Clay's  ball.  Randolph,  saying,  "You 
owe  me  a  coat,  Mr.  Clay,"  extended  his  hand,  which 
Clay  grasped,  saying,  "  I  am  glad  the  debt  is  no  greater." 

Appointed  in  1830  to  the  Russian  mission  by  Presi 
dent  Jackson  evidently  to  get  him  out  of  the  country, 
Randolph  disappointed  this  expectation,  returning 
shortly  to  oppose  Jackson  on  the  Nullification  issue. 
He  died  of  consumption  in  Philadelphia  in  1833  as  he 
was  about  to  go  abroad  for  his  health. 

Randolph's  personal  appearance  was  very  striking. 
His  complexion  was  swarthy,  and  his  frame  tall  and 
slender.  In  debate  he  was  continually  shaking  his  long, 
bony  fingers  at  his  opponents. 

Randolph's  speech  against  the  Non-Intercourse  Act 
may  be  entitled  "The  Folly  of  Retaliation."  The 
measure,  he  said,  was  in  pretense  a  substitute  for  hos 
tilities,  yet  defended  on  principles  which  regarded  it  as 
a  forerunner  of  war. 

"If  war  is  necessary — if  we  have  reached  this  point — 
let  us  have  war.  But  while  I  have  life  I  will  never  consent 
to  these  incipient  war  measures  which  in  their  beginning 
breathe  nothing  but  peace  though  they  plunge  at  last  into 
war." 

Great  Britain,  he  contended,  was  now  too  powerful  for 
feeble  America  to  contend  against. 

"Gentlemen  who,  it  would  appear  from  their  language, 
have  not  got  beyond  the  horn-book  of  politics,  talk  of 
our  ability  to  cope  with  the  British  navy,  and  tell  us  of  the 
war  of  our  Revolution.  [But]  Great  Britain  .  .  .  was  then 
contending  for  the  empire  of  the  British  Channel,  barely 
able  to  maintain  a  doubtful  equality  with  her  enemies.  .  .  . 
What  is  her  present  situation?  The  combined  fleets  of 


3i 6  American  Debate  1*803- 

France,  Spain,  and  Holland  are  dissipated — they  no  longer 
exist." 

He  charged  that  the  animus  of  the  bill  was  "mer 
cantile  avarice" — a  wholly  unwarranted  indictment  in 
that  the  measure  called  for  a  suspension  of  all  foreign 
trade,  and  as  so  operating  was  looked  upon  askance  by 
the  commercial  interests  of  the  country  which,  with  the 
characteristic  timidity  of  business,  would 

"rather  bear  those  ills  [they]  have 
Than  fly  to  others  that  [they]  know  not  of." 

He  was  not  surprised,  he  said,  to  see  men,  goaded 
by  such  a  spirit,  straining  their  feeble  strength  to  excite 
the  nation  to  war  when  they  had  reached  the  stage  of 
infatuation  that  we  were  an  overmatch  for  Great  Britain 
on  the  ocean. 

"It  is  a  mere  waste  of  time  to  reason  with  such  persons. 
The  proper  arguments  .  .  .  are  a  strait  waistcoat,  a  dark 
room,  water  gruel,  and  depletion." 

Yet  in  the  war  that  followed  the  Embargo  it  was  on 
the  sea  that  the  United  States  gained  all  its  telling 
victories ! 

Randolph  then  denounced  the  kind  of  trade  that  was 
intended  to  be  protected  by  the  Act. 

"What  is  the  question  in  dispute?  The  carrying  trade. 
What  part  of  it  ?  The  fair,  the  honest,  and  the  useful  trade 
that  is  engaged  in  carrying  our  own  productions  to  foreign 
markets,  and  bringing  back  their  productions  in  exchange? 
No,  sir.  It  is  that  carrying  trade  which  covers  enemy's 
property,  and  carries  .  .  .  West  India  products  to  the 
mother  country.  .  .  . 


1823]  National  Defense  317 

"If  this  great  agricultural  nation  is  to  be  governed  by 
Salem  and  Boston,  New  York  and  Philadelphia,  and  Balti 
more  and  Norfolk  and  Charleston  ...  let  a  committee  of 
public  safety  be  appointed  from  those  towns  to  carry  on 
the  government.  I,  for  one,  will  not  mortgage  my  property 
and  liberty  to  carry  on  this  trade  .  .  .  — this  mushroom, 
this  fungus  of  war  .  .  .  which,  as  soon  as  the  nations  of 
Europe  are  at  peace,  will  no  longer  exist.  .  .  . 

"  I  am  averse  to  a  naval  war  with  any  nation  whatsoever. 
I  was  opposed  to  the  naval  war  of  the  last  administration  .  .  . 
What!  shall  this  great  mammoth  of  the  American  forest 
leave  his  native  element  and  plunge  into  the  water  in  a 
mad  contest  with  a  shark?  Let  him  beware  that  his  pro 
boscis  is  not  bitten  off  in  the  engagement.  Let  him  stay 
on  shore,  and  not  be  excited  by  the  mussels  and  periwinkles 
on  the  strand,  or  political  bears  in  a  boat,  to  venture  on  the 
perils  of  the  deep. " 

He  returned  from  this  bizarre  zoological  metaphor  to 
sober  argument.  He  charged  the  Republicans  with 
inconsistency  in  calling  for  war  with  Great  Britain, 
when  in  1798  they  had  opposed  a  far  more  justifiable 
war  with  France  on  the  solid  ground  that  the  President 
would  thereby  be  armed  with  a  patronage  and  power 
which  might  enable  it  to  master  the  people's  liberties — 
a  reason  that  equally  prevailed  in  the  present  case. 

"Are  you  not  contented  with  being  free  and  happy  at 
home?  Or  will  you  surrender  these  blessings  that  your 
merchants  may  tread  on  Turkish  and  Persian  carpets,  and 
burn  the  perfumes  of  the  East  in  their  vaulted  rooms? " 

He  frankly  discarded  considerations  of  "national 
honor."  Self-interest,  he  declared,  was  the  ruling 
principle  in  government. 


3i 8  American  Debate  [1803- 

"What  is  national  law  but  national  power  guided  by 
national  interest?  You  yourselves  acknowledge  and  prac 
tice  upon  this  principle  where  you  can,  or  where  you  dare — 
with  the  Indian  tribes,  for  instance. " 

On  this  ground  he  justified  Great  Britain  for  her 
invasion  of  neutral  rights: 

She  was  not  fighting  for  conquest  but  for  defense — her 
very  existence — while  her  enemy  was  violating  at  will  the 
territories  of  other  nations,  acquiring  thereby  a  colossal 
power  that  threatened  the  world,  our  country  included. 
Now  the  vulnerable  point,  the  "heel  of  Achilles"  of  France, 
was  her  commerce,  and  over  this  she  drew  the  aegis  of  the 
neutral  flag.  In  view  of  our  own  interest  in  the  success  of 
Great  Britain  in  the  conflict,  should  we  attempt  to  prevent 
that  country's  single  chance  of  victory?1 

At  the  time  the  Non-Importation  Act  was  passed, 
William  Pinkney  [Md.]  was  appointed  a  special  envoy 
to  assist  James  Monroe,  minister  to  Great  Britain,  in 
securing  a  new  treaty.  This  was  negotiated  on  Decem 
ber  31,  1806.  It  restored  the  old  rule  superseded  by  the 
Essex  decision.  The  American  ministers,  nevertheless, 
were  compelled  to  yield  the  right  of  search  and  impress 
ment,  on  the  understanding,  however,  that  it  would  be 
exercised  only  under  extraordinary  circumstances. 
Owing  to  the  concession  of  impressment  President 
Jefferson  declined  to  submit  the  treaty  to  the  Senate 
for  confirmation,  and  ordered  the  American  envoys  to 
continue  their  negotiations.  Against  this  action  the 
sea-merchants,  who  had  suffered  greatly  from  the  Non- 

1  The  reader  will  note  the  close  parallel  between  Randolph's  objec 
tions  to  the  Non-Intercourse  Act  and  the  protest  of  many  Americans 
of  the  present  day  against  our  government's  demand  that  Great  Britain 
respect  our  neutral  rights  in  the  present  European  war. 


1823]  National  Defense  319 

Intercourse  Act,  vigorously  protested,  and  the  Feder 
alist  statesmen  made  the  cause  of  these  their  own. 
Jefferson's  rejection  of  the  treaty  on  the  ground  of 
protecting  our  seamen  from  impressment  exalted  this 
principle  to  the  chief  place  in  our  contention  with 
Great  Britain,  and  made  war  soon  or  late  inevitable 
with  that  country. 

The  Embargo.  On  January  7,  1807,  Great  Britain 
issued  an  "Order  in  Council"  prohibiting  neutral 
vessels  from  trading  between  the  ports  of  France  and 
her  Allies.  This  act  created  great  resentment  through 
out  the  Union,  which  was  intensified  by  the  forcible 
impressment,  on  June  22,  1807,  by  the  British  frigate 
Leopard,  of  four  sailors  of  the  American  Chesapeake. 

Accordingly  President  Jefferson  convened  Congress 
in  October,  1807,  in  advance  of  its  regular  time  of 
assembly,  and  laid  before  them  the  actions  of  the 
British  government  which  demanded  redress.  While 
Congress  was  in  session  (in  November)  Great  Britain 
promulgated  another  Order  in  Council  declaring  a 
blockade  of  all  ports  from  which  Great  Britain  was 
excluded. 

As  soon  as  news  of  this  reached  America  the  President 
sent  a  special  message  to  Congress  recommending  an 
embargo.  This  was  passed  in  secret  session  on  Decem 
ber  21. 

In  retaliation  for  the  British  Orders  in  Council, 
Napoleon  on  December  7,  1807,  and  January  II,  1808, 
issued  the  " Milan  Decrees,"  so-called  from  the  place 
of  promulgation.  These  proclaimed  that  any  vessel 
connected  with  British  trade,  or  having  submitted  to 
British  search,  was  "denationalized, "  and  hence  a  good 
prize  for  France  and  her  allies.  On  April  17,  1808,  he 
added  the  "Bayonne  Decree,"  which  righteously  pro- 


320  American  Debate  [1803- 

f  essed  to  support  the  American  embargo  by  ordering  the 
seizure  and  sale  of  all  American  vessels  which  should 
enter  the  ports  of  France  or  her  Allies  in  violation  of 
the  act  of  Congress.  The  American  shipowners  and 
merchants  bore  their  losses  in  grim  silence  for  several 
months,  but  when  no  indication  transpired  that  the 
embargo  would  cause  Great  Britain  to  withdraw  her 
Orders  in  Council — that,  on  the  contrary,  she  professed 
to  be  pleased  with  the  transfer  which  it  caused  of  the 
carrying  trade  to  her  own  marine — they  inspired  a 
movement  to  repeal  the  act. 

On  April  7,  1808,  John  Randolph,  who  had  advocated 
an  embargo  in  substitution  for  the  Non-Intercourse 
Act,  permitted  his  hostility  to  the  Administration  to 
get  the  better  of  his  consistency,  and,  in  a  speech 
against  a  bill  to  increase  the  army  in  prospect  of  war 
with  Great  Britain,  included  the  embargo  among  other 
objects  of  his  reprobation. 

On  April  8,  George  W.  Campbell  [Term.],  for  the 
Administration,  moved  that  the  President  be  em 
powered  to  suspend  the  embargo  in  certain  contingen 
cies  (i.e.,  settlement  of  our  difficulties  with  Great 
Britain  and  France)  which  might  arise  in  recess  of 
Congress. 

Sketch  of  Campbell.  George  Washington  Campbell, 
a  graduate  of  Princeton,  was  a  Representative  in 
Congress  from  1803  to  1809,  serving  as  chairman  of  the 
Ways  and  Means  committee.  He  was  elected  to  the 
Senate  in  181 1,  and  resigned  in  1814  to  take  the  position 
of  Secretary  of  the  Treasury.  He  was  again  elected  to 
the  Senate  in  1815,  and  resigned  in  1818,  when  ap 
pointed  minister  to  Russia.  When  abroad  he  applied 
himself  faithfully  to  prosecuting  American  claims 
against  foreign  governments.  He  returned  in  1820,  and 


1823]  National  Defense  321 

died  in  1848.  He  was  conscientious  in  the  discharge  of 
his  duties — a  "wheel-horse"  of  the  Administrations  he 
served,  and,  as  such,  a  type  of  many  otherwise  un 
distinguished  men  deserving  of  honor  for  their  part 
in  the  efficient  conduct  of  our  government. 

Mr.  Campbell  denied  that  the  embargo  was  pleasing 
to  the  country  it  was  laid  against. 

We  have  abandoned  our  commerce  with  Great  Britain, 
but  not  to  her;  in  retiring  from  the  ocean  we  have  carried 
with  us  almost  the  whole  commerce  of  the  European  world. 
The  belligerent  powers  cannot  carry  on  commerce  with 
each  other,  and  there  are  no  neutrals  in  Europe  with  which 
they  can  trade — what  commerce,  then,  is  abandoned  by  us 
to  Great  Britain? 

Look  at  the  reports  of  Parliament.  British  statesmen 
are  complaining  against  the  Orders  in  Council  since  these 
caused  our  embargo  which  is  producing  destitution  in  their 
country.  This  proves  in  a  very  decided  manner  that  our 
restriction  is  in  full  operation,  and  in  a  fair  way  toward 
effecting  the  object  for  which  it  was  laid. 

Mr.  Randolph  replied  by  describing  the  distress 
caused  in  America  by  the  measure. 

Every  class  of  men  feels  it,  but  in  most  woful  measure 
the  poor.  Like  one  of  the  blind  visitations  of  nature,  a 
tornado,  while  it  merely  strips  the  strong,  it  sweeps  away 
the  weak.  The  humble  plant  is  uprooted;  the  oak  escapes 
with  the  loss  of  nothing  but  its  annual  honors.  Want 
knocks  at  the  door  of  the  poor  man,  and  poverty  thrusts 
in  his  face  at  the  window.  And  what  relief  can  the  rich 
extend?  They  sit  upon  their  heaps,  and  feel  them  moulder 
ing  into  ruins  under  them.  What  was  once  property  is 
property  no  longer,  for  property  depends  on  circulation,  on 
exchange,  on  ideal  value.  The  power  of  property  is  all 
ax 


322  American  Debate  ir 

relative:  it  depends  not  merely  on  opinion  here,  but  upon 
opinion  in  other  countries.  If  it  be  cut  off  from  its  destined 
market,  much  of  it  is  worth  nothing,  and  the  value  of  the 
remainder  is  infinitely  impaired. 

But  the  magnitude  of  the  embargo  power  is  not  more 
remarkable  than  its  novelty.  Such  an  experiment  was  never 
before  tried — indeed,  never  before  was  conceived  even  in 
the  realm  of  fiction.  Five  millions  of  people  are  involved. 
They  cannot  go  beyond  the  limits  of  their  once  free  country ; 
they  are  not  even  permitted  to  thrust  their  own  property 
through  the  grates.  Who  can  foretell  when  the  spirit  of 
endurance  will  cease? 

Mr.  Randolph  then  instituted  a  parable  of  the  situa 
tion,  likening  this  to  a  physician  experimenting  on  a 
healthy  man  by  hermetically  sealing  his  pores,  and, 
when  he  became  violently  ill  in  consequence,  telling 
the  nurse  to  disregard  any  internal  symptoms,  but  that 
if  anything  external  should  happen,  to  remove  the 
bandages. 

"But  ...  if  the  sky  should  fall,  and  larks  should  begin 
to  appear,  if  three  birds  of  Paradise  should  fly  into  the 
window,  the  great  purpose  of  all  these  sufferings  is  answered. 
Then,  and  then  only,  have  you  my  authority  to  administer 
relief." 

Mr.  Campbell's  bill  was  passed.  During  the  following 
recess  of  Congress  the  feeling  against  the  embargo 
became  extreme  in  certain  parts  of  the  country,  particu 
larly  New  England.1  The  Federal  courts  there  were 
unable  to  secure  convictions  from  juries  of  violations 
of  the  act,  and  smuggling  through  Canada  became  a 
safe,  profitable,  and  extensive  trade.  Some  of  the  New 

1  See  William  Cullen  Bryant's  youthful  poem  on  The  Embargo. 


National  Defense  323 

England  State  courts  held  that  the  embargo  was  un 
constitutional  since  it  went  beyond  the  regulation  of 
commerce  to  its  annihilation,  and  some  of  the  New 
England  legislatures  passed  resolutions  denouncing  the 
act  as  a  sectional  measure  in  favor  of  the  agricultural 
Middle  and  Southern  States  at  the  expense  of  the 
commercial  Northern  ones. 

At  the  next  session  of  Congress  memorials  against  the 
embargo  poured  in  from  various  affected  commercial 
interests.  It  appeared  that  every  industry  but  domestic 
manufacture  was  suffering. 

The  President  in  his  message  upheld  the  act,  as 
"saving  our  mariners,  and  our  vast  mercantile  property, 
and  "affording  time  for  prosecuting  the  defensive  and 
provisional  measures  called  for  by  the  occasion." 

The  Administration  party  was  strong  enough  to 
pass  on  January  9,  1809,  a  drastic  enforcing  act  supple 
mentary  to  the  embargo.  This  act  was  published  in 
many  New  England  newspapers  inclosed  in  black 
borders  and  headed  by  such  mottoes  as  "Liberty  is 
Dead!"  John  Quincy  Adams,  who  had  resigned  from 
the  Senate  because  he  could  not  conscientiously  repre 
sent  its  sentiment  against  the  embargo,  informed 
President  Jefferson  in  February  that  execution  of  the 
enforcing  act  might  result  in  New  England's  secession 
from  the  Union — indeed,  that  negotiations  were  al 
ready  in  progress  for  British  assistance  to  that  end. 

Opportunity  was  afforded  the  President  to  "back 
water"  by  intimations  from  the  British  government 
that  its  Orders  in  Council  would  be  withdrawn  if  the 
United  States  government  met  it  half  way.  Accord 
ingly  the  Administration  secured  the  passage  by 
Congress  of  a  "Non-Intercourse"  bill  which  repealed 
the  embargo  after  May  20,  1809,  and  empowered  the 


324  American  Debate  [1803- 

President  to  open  trade  with  either  Great  Britain  or 
France  upon  the  repeal  of  her  oppressive  decrees  in  so 
far  as  these  applied  to  the  United  States.  The  bill 
was  enacted  on  March  I,  1809.  The  act  was  continued 
in  force,  with  one  short  interval,  until  abolished  by  the 
Treaty  of  Ghent  in  1814. 

Second  War  with  Great  Britain.  James  Madison, 
Jefferson's  Secretary  of  State  and  alter  ego,  became 
President  on  March  4,  1809.  He  continued  Jefferson's 
policy.  On  April  19,  1809,  David  M.  Erskine,  the 
minister  of  Great  Britain  at  Washington,  withdrew 
the  Orders  in  Council,  and  President  Madison  removed 
the  embargo  against  that  country.  But,  as  soon  as 
Erskine's  action  was  reported  to  the  British  govern 
ment,  this  repudiated  it  as  unauthorized,  and  recalled 
the  minister.  President  Madison  thereupon  restored 
the  Non-Intercourse  Act.  F.  J.  Jackson,  the  new  British 
minister,  on  his  arrival  at  Washington,  charged  that  the 
agreement  with  Erskine  had  been  obtained  by  trickery, 
and  Robert  Smith,  Secretary  of  State,  refused  to  hold 
communication  with  him. 

The  Act  was  equally  ineffective  in  bringing  France  to 
terms.  In  January,  1810,  Napoleon  informed  John 
Armstrong,  our  minister  to  France,  that  the  repeal  of 
his  " Decrees"  was  dependent  on  the  withdrawal  of  the 
British  blockade,  and,  on  March  23,  1810,  he  issued  his 
"  Rambouillet  Decree  "  by  which  132  captured  American 
vessels,  of  a  value  of  $8,000,000,  were  condemned  and 
sold.  However,  on  August  5,  1810,  Napoleon  revoked 
his  decrees  as  applied  to  America  on  condition  that  the 
United  States  would  assert  her  rights  against  Great 
Britain.  On  November  2,  President  Madison  accepted 
this  arrangement,  and  soon  afterwards  pressed  Great 
Britain  to  revoke  its  Orders  in  Council.  This  the  British 


1823]  National  Defense  325 

government  refused  to  do  on  the  ground  that  Napoleon 
had  not  made  a  bona  fide  revocation  in  that  he  had 
retained  the  money  from  the  sale  of  the  American 
vessels,  and  the  French  prize  courts  had  refused  to 
accept  the  revocation.  Nevertheless,  President  Madi 
son,  on  March  2,  1811,  continued  the  Non-Intercourse 
Act  against  Great  Britain  alone. 

In  the  elections  to  the  succeeding  Congress  the 
people,  weary  of  temporizing  measures,  had  replaced 
many  of  the  old  "  peace-at-any-price "  statesmen  with 
younger  men  of  a  more  aggressive  temper.  Among 
these  may  be  mentioned  Henry  Clay  [Ky.]  and  John  C. 
Calhoun  [S.  C.].  Clay,  owing  to  the  reputation  that  he 
had  achieved  in  filling  two  unexpired  terms  in  the 
Senate,  was  elected  Speaker  of  the  House  by  the  new 
element. 

Sketch  of  Clay.  Clay,  a  native  of  Hanover  county, 
Va.,  in  a  district  known  as  the  "Slashes"  (whence  his 
popular  appellation,  the  "Mill-boy  of  the  Slashes'*)* 
was  the  son  of  a  poor  Baptist  clergyman  who  died  when 
the  boy  was  four  years  of  age.  Henry,  after  a  slight 
education  in  a  country  school,  broken  by  farm  work  for 
his  neighbors,  secured  work  in  a  small  shop  in  Richmond 
from  which  he  advanced,  at  the  age  of  fifteen,  to  a 
place  in  the  office  of  the  clerk  of  the  high  court  of 
chancery.  Here  his  ability  attracted  the  attention  of 
Chancellor  Wythe,  who  directed  his  legal  studies. 
Admitted  to  the  bar  in  1797,  at  the  age  of  twenty,  he 
began  practice  in  Lexington,  Ky.,  whither  his  mother, 
marrying  again,  had  preceded  him.  At  Richmond  he 
had  become  the  leading  spirit  in  a  debating  club,  and 
he  at  once  achieved  distinction  in  a  similar  society  in 
his  new  home,  which,  together  with  his  personal  charm, 
resulted  in  a  lucrative  practice  in  his  profession,  and 


326  American  Debate  [1803- 

launched  him  into  a  political  career.  He  was  elected 
on  a  committee  to  revise  the  constitution  of  the  State, 
into  which  instrument  he  fought  unsuccessfully  to 
introduce  a  provision  for  the  gradual  emancipation  of 
slaves.  He  became  an  ardent  Republican  in  the  agita 
tion  against  the  Alien  and  Sedition  laws,  captivating  his 
audiences  by  the  power  and  beauty  of  his  eloquence. 
In  1803  he  was  elected  to  the  State  legislature,  where 
he  added  to  his  oratorical  fame  the  more  important 
reputation  of  a  powerful  argumentative  speaker.  For 
the  session  of  1806-07  he  filled  an  unexpired  term  as 
United  States  Senator,  taking  an  active  part  in  the 
debates,  especially  on  internal  improvements,  in  ad 
vocacy  of  which  he  began  to  depart  from  the  Republican 
view  of  the  limited  power  of  the  Federal  government. 
In  1807  he  returned  to  the  Kentucky  legislature  as  its 
Speaker.  Here  he  introduced  resolutions  in  favor  of  the 
embargo,  and  in  unyielding  opposition  to  all  the  aggres 
sions  of  Great  Britain.  He  offered  another  resolution 
recommending  that  the  legislators  wear  clothing  only  of 
domestic  manufacture.  Thereafter  he  became  a  great 
champion  of  home  industry,  the  encouragement  of 
which  was  his  chief  purpose  in  causing  him  to  advocate 
a  more  or  less  prohibitive  tariff  on  imports.  In  1809-1 1 
he  filled  another  unexpired  term  in  the  Senate,  in  which 
he  promoted  his  new  cause  on  every  opportunity.  He 
also  showed  his  humane  disposition  by  advocating 
reform  in  our  Indian  policy,  into  which  abuses  of  these 
11  wards  of  the  nation  "  had  begun  to  creep.  Later  in  his 
career  (in  1819),  he  denounced  General  Andrew  Jackson 
for  his  arbitrary  and  cruel  acts  which  inaugurated  the 
long,  bitter,  and  expensive  Seminole  war.  Upon  this 
question  Clay  rose  to  the  supreme  height  of  oratory, 
overcoming  his  one  great  fault  as  a  speaker,  a  certain 


1823]  National  Defense  327 

inelegance  of  literary  expression,  apparent  in  the  printed 
reports  of  his  speeches.  Here  the  ardor  of  his  speech, 
usually  leading  him,  by  its  amazing  effect  upon  his 
audiences,  to  neglect  precision  of  diction  and  conso 
nance  of  rhetoric,  was  under  perfect  control.  Realizing 
the  importance  of  his  utterances  on  the  subject,  he 
weighed  his  words,  and  so  gave  momentum  to  the 
charge  he  hurled  against  the  popular  idol  of  the  West 
and  South,  the  piercing  power  of  which  was  assured  by 
his  impassioned  eloquence,  which  always  touched  the 
hearts  of  his  hearers.  In  the  last  year  of  this  term 
in  the  Senate,  Clay  opposed  as  unconstitutional  the 
renewal  of  the  charter  of  the  United  States  Bank, 
recommended  by  Secretary  of  the  Treasury  Gallatin, 
and  contributed  much  to  its  defeat.  His  later  support 
of  the  Bank,  due  to  pressure  of  his  constituents  in  its 
favor,  is  the  one  great  blot  on  his  record. 

Clay  served  as  Speaker  of  the  House  of  Representa 
tives  from  1811  to  1814,  when  he  was  appointed  on  the 
peace  commission  to  Great  Britain.  In  1 8 1 5  he  returned 
to  America,  and  was  again  elected  to  Congress,  be 
coming  Speaker  of  House,  and  so  remaining  until  1820, 
when  he  retired  for  a  short  period  to  private  life. 
Notwithstanding  his  position  as  presiding  officer,  he 
took  a  leading  part  in  all  the  important  debates.  His 
career  from  this  point  will  develop  in  the  succeeding 
portions  of  this  work.  It  will  suffice  to  note  here  that  he 
again  served  in  Congress  as  Speaker  of  the  House  from 
1823  to  1825;  was  a  candidate  for  President  in  1824; 
Secretary  of  State  1825-29;  Senator,  1831-42  and  1849- 
52;  National  Republican  candidate  for  President  in 
1832  and  Whig  candidate  in  1844;  a  leading  spirit  in 
the  Missouri  Compromise  of  1820,  and  the  author  of 
the  Compromise  of  1850;  and  prominently  concerned 


328  American  Debate  [1803- 

in  all  the  protective  tariff  measures  from  1816  to  1833, 
of  the  last  of  which,  the  so-called  "  Compromise  Tariff,*' 
he  was  the  author. 

Epes  Sargent,  in  his  Life  of  Henry  Clay  (1848),  thus 
describes  the  personal  appearance  of  the  statesman  in 
his  seventy-first  year: 

"In  stature  he  is  tall,  sinewy,  erect,  and  commanding, 
with  ...  a  frame  capable  of  much  endurance.  From 
his  features  you  might  at  first  infer  that  he  was  a  hardy 
backwoodsman  who  had  been  accustomed  rather  to  the 
privations  and  trials  of  a  frontier  life  than  to  the  arena  of 
debate  and  the  diplomatic  table.  But  when  you  meet  his 
full,  clear  gray  eye,  you  see  in  its  flashes  the  conscious  power 
of  a  well-trained  and  panoplied  intellect,  as  well  as  the 
glance  of  an  intrepid  soul.  Its  luster  gives  animation  to  the 
whole  countenance,  and  its  varying  expression  faithfully 
interprets  the  emotions  and  sentiments  of  the  orator. 
Much  of  the  charm  of  his  speaking  lies  in  his  clear,  orotund, 
and  indescribably  melodious  voice,  which  is  of  wide  com 
pass,  and  as  distinct  in  its  low  as  in  its  high  tones. " 

Gold  win  Smith,  in  his  The  United  States:  An  Outline 
of  Political  History  (1893),  gives  the  following  estimate 
of  Clay  as  a  statesman: 

"Clay  was  perhaps  the  first  consummate  party  leader  of 
the  Congressional  and  platform  type,  Jefferson  having 
worked  ...  in  the  closet  and  through  the  press.  He  was  a 
paragon  of  the  personal  fascination  now  styled  magnetism. 
Magnetic,  indeed,  his  manner  and  voice  must  have  been  if 
he  could  make  the  speeches  he  has  left  us  pass  for  the  most 
cogent  reasoning  and  the  highest  eloquence.  Yet  multitudes 
came  from  distances,  in  those  days  immense,  to  hear  him. 
A  cynical  critic  said  that  Clay  could  get  more  people  to 


1823]  National  Defense  329 

listen  to  him,  and  fewer  people  to  vote  for  him,  than  any 
other  man  in  the  Union.  .  .  . 

"He  was  ardently  patriotic  after  the  war-hawk  fashion, 
but  the  Presidency  was  always  in  his  thoughts,  and  its 
attraction  accounts  for  the  perturbations  of  his  political 
orbit.  He  said  that  he  would  'rather  be  right  than  Presi 
dent,'  but  .  .  .  even  at  the  moment  ...  he  was  thinking 
more  of  being  President  than  of  being  right. 

"His  policy  and  sentiment  were  intensely  American,  and 
by  the  cosmopolitans  would  now  be  designated  as  'jingo.' 
He  was  a  protectionist  on  what  he  deemed  patriotic  grounds, 
and  the  chief  author  of  a  system  to  which  Hamilton  had 
only  moderately  inclined." 

Sketch  of  Calhoun.  John  Caldwell  Calhoun  was  of 
Scotch-Irish  Presbyterian  stock,  whence  he  derived  his 
positive  convictions  and  devotion  to  personal  rights. 
His  father,  a  State  legislator  of  extreme  democratic 
opinions,  guided  his  early  studies,  which  were  largely 
historical  and  metaphysical.  He  took  a  partial  course 
at  Yale  where  his  application  to  books  and  his  original 
ity  of  thought  won  him  the  respect  of  his  professors  and 
fellow  students.  As  the  result  of  a  discussion  with  him 
on  the  rightful  source  of  political  power,  President 
D wight  prophesied  his  eminence  as  a  statesman, 
perhaps  President.  He  was  admitted  to  the  bar  in 
1807.  Largely  as  a  result  of  an  eloquent  speech  which 
he  made  on  the  Chesapeake  affair  in  that  year,  he 
was  elected  to  the  South  Carolina  legislature.  He  en 
tered  Congress  in  1811,  in  his  thirtieth  year.  The 
chief  events  of  his  subsequent  career  will  transpire  in 
these  pages. 

Of  his  personal  characteristics  James  Parton  says, 
in  an  article,  "John  C.  Calhoun,"  in  The  North  Ameri 
can  Review,  vol.  ci.,  p.  388: 


33°  American  Debate  [1803- 

"He  was  rather  slender,  but  very  erect,  with  a  good  deal 
of  dignity  and  some  grace  in  his  carriage  and  demeanor. 
His  eyes  were  .  .  .  remarkably  fine  and  brilliant.  He  had 
a  well-developed  and  strongly  set  nose,  cheek  bones  high, 
and  cheeks  rather  sunken.  His  mouth  was  large.  .  .  . 
His  early  portraits  show  his  hair  erect  on  his  forehead.  .  .  . 
His  voice  could  never  have  been  melodious,  but  it  was 
always  powerful.  At  every  period  of  his  life,  his  manners 
.  .  .  were  extremely  agreeable,  even  fascinating. " 

Of  his  mental  characteristics,  Charles  Cotesworth 
Pinckney  says,  in  an  article,  "John  C.  Calhoun, "  in 
Lippincott's  Magazine,  vol.  Ixii.,  p.  81 : 

"He  was  a  man  of  bold  temper,  of  intense  earnestness, 
and  of  deep  convictions — convictions  so  strong  as  to  have 
'all  the  force  of  passions.'  Such  a  man  must  needs  antago 
nize  where  he  could  not  convince.  .  .  .  He  seldom  quoted 
books  or  the  opinions  of  others.  A  rapid  reader,  he  would 
absorb  the  congenial  thoughts  of  an  author  and  reject 
whatever  did  not  assimilate  with  his  mental  habits.  His 
mind  always  seemed  to  work  from  within,  by  spontaneous 
impulse,  not  by  external  influences.  ...  It  drove  on  its 
rapid  way  like  some  mighty  automatic  engine,  without 
friction,  without  noise,  apparently  without  ever  stopping 
for  fuel  or  water.  Its  own  ardor  generated  heat  enough  to 
sustain  the  rapid  motion.  No  other  mind  has  ever  appeared 
to  me  so  original,  so  full,  so  self-reliant. " 

Of  his  oratory  Daniel  Webster  said,  in  the  Senate  on 
the  announcement  of  Calhoun's  death: 

"The  eloquence  of  Mr.  Calhoun,  or  the  manner  in  which 
he  exhibited  his  sentiments  in  public  bodies,  was  part  of  his 
intellectual  character.  ...  It  was  plain,  strong,  terse  .  .  . 
sometimes  impassioned,  still  always  severe.  Rejecting 
ornament,  not  often  seeking  for  illustrations,  his  power 


1823]  National  Defense  331 

consisted  in  the  plainness  of  his  propositions,  in  the  close 
ness  of  his  logic,  and  in  the  earnestness  and  energy  of  his 


Of  his  influence  as  a  statesman  Benson  J.  Lossing 
says,  in  his  Eminent  Americans: 

"Few  men  have  exerted  a  more  powerful  and  controlling 
sway  over  the  opinions  of  vast  masses  of  men  than  Mr. 
Calhoun,  for  his  views  on  several  topics  coincided  with 
those  of  the  great  majority  of  the  Southern  people;  and  he 
was  known  to  be  inflexibly  honest  and  true.  .  .  .  No  man 
of  his  faith  ever  doubted  that  leader  any  more  than  his 
creed.  As  a  statesman  he  was  full  of  forecast,  acute  in 
judgment,  and  comprehensive  in  his  general  views.  He  was 
eminently  conservative  in  many  things,  and  by  precept  and 
example  recommended  'masterful  inactivity'  as  preferable 
to  mere  impulsive  and  effervescent  movements. " 

In  1850,  as  his  life  grew  to  a  close  (he  knew  that  the 
end  was  near),  Calhoun  wrote  a  Disquisition  on  Govern 
ment  and  a  Discourse  on  the  Constitution  and  Govern 
ment  of  the  United  States,  which  Professor  William 
P.  Trent,  in  Southern  Statesmen  of  the  Old  Regime 
(1897),  calls  "the  most  remarkable  political  documents 
the  student  of  American  history  is  called  upon  to  read." 
In  the  first  he  fully  explains  his  doctrine  of  the  "con 
current  majority";  in  the  second,  his  interpretation  of 
the  "compact"  theory  of  the  Constitution. 

Among  the  embodiments  of  the  "new  blood"  in 
jected  into  Congress  at  this  time  may  be  mentioned 
two  young  South  Carolinians,  William  Lowndes  and 
Langdon  Cheves,  and  a  Tennesseean,  Felix  Grundy. 
In  opposition  to  what  had  been  the  Republican  policy 
Lowndes  and  Cheves  became  special  promoters  of  a 


332  American  Debate  ['803- 

strong  naval  establishment.  Grundy  expressed  the 
war-spirit  of  the  southwestern  frontier  in  advocating 
resistance  by  force  to  the  aggressions  of  Great  Britain. 
Later,  in  the  nullification  controversy,  he  was  the 
exponent  of  the  strong  Union  sentiment  of  his  State 
in  opposition  to  the  theory  of  Calhoun. 

The  war-spirit  of  the  country  swept  the  Government 
of  the  peace-loving,  yet  patriotic  Madison  into  the 
gulf  of  war,  unprepared  as  it  was  for  the  plunge.  In  his 
message  at  the  opening  of  Congress  on  November  5, 
1811,  the  President  recommended  "  putting  the  United 
States  into  an  armor  and  an  attitude  demanded  by  the 
crisis,  and  corresponding  with  the  national  spirit  and 
expectations." 

On  the  29th  of  the  month,  Peter  B.  Porter  [N.  Y.], 
chairman  of  the  Committee  on  Foreign  Relations, 
reported  resolutions  advising  armed  resistance  against 
Great  Britain.  In  this  the  impressment  of  American 
seamen  was  made  a  chief  cause  for  hostilities. 

In  the  debate  which  followed,  December  6,  1811, 
John  Randolph  was  the  only  opponent  of  war.  He 
advanced  general  pacifist  arguments,  and,  in  addition, 
blamed  the  government  for  causing  the  present  un 
fortunate  situation  by  its  commercial  restrictions.  He 
ironically  declared: 


"Now  that  by  our  own  acts  we  have  brought  ourselves 
into  this  unprecedented  situation,  we  must  get  out  of  it  in 
any  way  but  by  an  acknowledgment  of  our  own  want  of 
wisdom  and  forecast.  But  is  war  the  true  remedy?  Who 
will  profit  by  it  ?  Speculators — a  few  lucky  merchants  who 
draw  prizes  in  the  lottery — commissaries  and  contractors. 
Who  will  suffer  by  it?  The  people.  It  is  their  blood,  their 
taxes,  that  must  flow  to  support  it. " 


National  Defense  333 

He  repeated  his  favorite  eulogy  of  Great  Britain  as 
our  kindred  country,  the  land  of  Shakespeare  and 
Newton,  etc.,  and  his  former  denunciation  of  regular 
soldiers  as  mercenaries. 

This  specially  aroused  Richard  M.  Johnson  [Ky.], 
who  was  representative  of  the  anti-British  sentiment 
of  the  frontier  which  had  been  set  in  bitter  hostility  by 
British  instigation  of  Indian  uprisings,  and  he  excoriated 
Randolph  for  his  unpatriotic  sentiments. 


"I  have  never  thought  that  the  ties  of  religion,  of  blood, 
of  language,  and  of  commerce  would  justify  or  sanctify 
insult  and  injury — on  the  contrary,  that  a  premeditated 
wrong  from  the  hand  of  a  friend  created  more  sensibility 
and  deserved  the  greater  chastisement  and  the  higher 
execration." 


In  answer  to  Randolph's  charge  against  the  regular 
soldiers,  Johnson  gave  with  great  feeling  a  graphic 
report  of  the  gallant  action  of  such  troops  (including 
personal  friends  of  the  speaker)  under  General  William 
Henry  Harrison  at  the  defeat  of  Chief  Tecumseh  at 
the  battle  of  Tippecanoe,  which  had  been  fought  less 
than  a  month  before  (November  9). 

Sketch  of  Johnson.  Richard  Mentor  Johnson,  a 
Kentuckian  in  birth,  education  (at  Transylvania 
College),  and  fervent  loyalty,  had  served  in  the  legis 
lature  of  his  State,  from  which  he  was  sent  to  Con 
gress  in  1807  as  a  Republican.  Upon  declaration  of 
war  with  Great  Britain,  he  raised  Kentucky  troops 
and  at  their  head  as  colonel,  fought  under  General 
Harrison  at  the  battle  of  the  Thames  on  October  5, 
1813,  when  Tecumseh  was  killed — it  was  said  by 


334  American  Debate  [1803- 

Colonel  Johnson.1  The  Colonel  was  borne  terribly 
wounded  from  the  field.  On  the  following  February, 
still  unable  to  walk,  he  was  carried  to  his  seat  in  the 
House  of  Representatives  amid  cheers  of  the  populace 
and  members.  In  1819  he  was  advanced  to  the  Sen 
ate,  where  he  served  until  1829.  He  returned  to  the 
House,  and  continued  as  Representative  until  1837, 
when  he  took  the  chair  of  the  Senate  as  Vice-Presi 
dent .  In  Congress  he  was  especially  active  in  In 
dian  affairs,  and  in  securing  pension  legislation  for 
veteran  soldiers. 

Mr.  Calhoun,  with  the  cutting  scorn  of  which  he 
was  master  on  occasion,  animadverted  on  the  spirit, 
or,  rather,  lack  of  spirit,  exhibited  by  the  freakish 
Virginian. 

"Our  .  .  .  maritime  rights,  and  the  personal  liberties 
of  our  citizens  employed  in  exercising  them  .  .  .  are 
essentially  attached,  and  war  is  the  only  means  of  redress. 
The  gentleman  from  Virginia  has  suggested  none — unless 
we  consider  the  whole  of  his  speech  as  recommending  patient 
.  .  .  submission.  .  .  .  Sir,  which  alternative  this  House 
ought  to  embrace  it  is  not  for  me  to  say.  I  hope  the  decision 
is  made  already  by  a  higher  authority  than  the  voice  of  any 
man.  It  is  not  for  the  human  tongue  to  instill  the  sense  of 
independence  and  honor.  This  is  the  work  of  nature — a 
generous  nature,  that  disdains  tame  submission  to  wrongs." 

Mr.  Calhoun  was  led  by  his  patriotic  feeling  to 
institute  an  ungenerous  comparison  between  Lord 

1  When  Johnson  ran  for  Vice-President  on  the  Democratic  (Van 
Buren)  ticket,  his  Whig  opponents  ridiculed  the  putative  exploit  in  a 
ribald  song: 

"Rumpsy,  dumpsy, 
Colonel  Johnson  killed  Tecumseh. " 


1823]  National  Defense  335 

Chatham  and  Mr.  Randolph,  against  which  Randolph 
protested.  After  reflection  the  conscientious  young 
South  Carolinian  withdrew  the  remark — an  instance 
which  unhappily  has  occurred  infrequently  in  Congress 
and  should  exalt  Calhoun  in  our  esteem  for  his  sense  of 
justice  and  moral  courage.  At  the  close  of  the  debate 
Randolph  spoke  in  defense  of  his  position,  particularly 
his  opposition  to  the  regular  army,  with  whose  hireling 
spirit  he  proudly  contrasted  the  free  patriotism  of  the 
militia. 

"In  what  school  [but  the  British]  had  the  illustrious  men 
of  the  Revolution  formed  those  noble  principles  of  civil 
liberty  asserted  by  their  eloquence  and  maintained  by  their 
arms  ?  Among  the  grievances  stated  in  their  remonstrance 
to  the  king  a  'standing  army'  meets  us  at  the  threshold. 
It  is  curious  to  see  in  that  list  of  wrongs  so  many  that  have 
since  been  self -inflicted  on  us.  .  .  . 

"Well  might  the  father  of  political  liberty  [Lord  Chatham] 
say  to  the  Parliament  of  England:  'entrench  yourselves  in 
parchment  to  the  teeth,  the  sword  will  find  a  passage  to  the 
vitals  of  the  constitution.'" 

In  accordance  with  the  recommendations  of  the 
Committee  on  Foreign  Relations  the  House  voted  an 
increase  of  the  army,  a  refitting  of  the  navy,  and  resort 
to  privateering. 

On  April  I,  1812,  President  Madison  recommended 
the  adoption  of  his  favorite  weapon,  an  embargo.  The 
issue  of  the  debate  which  resulted  was  whether  the 
measure  was  what  it  purported  to  be,  a  genuine  pre 
paration  for  war,  or  another  link  in  the  chain  of  in 
effectual  commercial  restrictions  intended  to  avert 
hostilities. 

Mr.  Clay  took  the  former  view;  Messrs.  Randolph 


336  American  Debate  [1803- 

and  Josiah  Quincy  3d,  the  latter.  Mr.  Quincy  ironically 
defended  the  merchants  who,  it  was  charged,  had 
instigated  Jefferson's  embargo,  which,  when  it  was  put 
into  operation  with  none  of  the  effects  they  had  hoped, 
the  bringing  of  Great  Britain  and  France  to  terms,  but 
only  with  disaster  to  themselves,  they  clamorously 
denounced. 

"It  is  true  that,  in  1805,  the  merchants  did  petition,  not 
for  embargo,  not  for  commercial  embarrassment  and 
annihilation,  but  for  protection.  They  at  that  time  really 
thought  that  this  national  government  was  formed  for 
protection,  and  had  at  heart  the  prosperity  of  all  the  great 
interests  of  the  country.  If  'it  was  a  grievous  fault,  griev 
ously  have  the  merchants  answered  it.'  .  .  .  They  'asked 
bread  and  you  gave  them  a  stone ' — '  fish,  and  you  gave  them 
a  serpent.'  Grant  that  the  fault  was  great,  suppose  that 
they  did  mistake  the  nature  and  character  of  the  govern 
ment,  is  the  penalty  they  incurred  by  this  error  never  to  be 
remitted?" 

Opposed  as  Quincy  was  to  the  war  with  Great  Britain, 
he  was  so  confirmed  a  Federalist  that  he  could  not 
resist  advocating  a  consistent  policy  of  the  party,  the 
building  up  of  sea-power,  that  on  January  25,  1812,  he 
made  a  great  speech  on  the  navy  which  won  applause 
from  all  parties,  and  did  much  to  redeem  his  character 
in  respect  to  patriotism. 

Following  this  he  declined  reelection  to  Congress,  and 
thereafter  devoted  himself  to  New  England  interests, 
becoming  successively  a  member  of  the  Massachusetts 
legislature,  mayor  of  Boston,  and  president  of  Harvard. 
Retiring  from  the  last  position  in  1848  he  spent  the 
remaining  years  of  his  life  in  literary  and  social  pursuits. 
He  wrote  a  number  of  historical  works  relating  to 


1823]  National  Defense  337 

Boston  and  Harvard,  and  a  memoir  of  John  Quincy 
Adams. 

Seeing  the  war  spirit  in  Congress,  President  Madison 
indicated  that  his  real  intention  in  recommending 
commercial  retaliation  had  been  a  peace  measure  by 
laying  it  aside  and  reluctantly  resorting  to  armed 
resistance.  On  June  I,  1812,  President  Madison  sent  a 
message  to  Congress  in  which  he  submitted  the  question 
of  war  with  Great  Britain  to  that  body  for  decision. 
War  was  declared  on  June  18.  As  no  new  arguments 
were  presented  in  the  debates  on  the  measure,  and 
upon  the  subsequent  conduct  of  the  war,  an  account 
of  the  discussions  is  here  omitted. T 

The  Hartford  Convention.  Because  of  its  bearing 
on  the  questions  of  State  Rights  and  Secession  it  is 
well,  however,  to  note  the  proceedings  of  an  anti-war 
convention  of  New  England  Federalists.  In  the  con 
gressional  elections  of  that  year  all  but  three  of  the 
Representatives  chosen  in  New  England  were  opposed 
to  the  continuance  of  the  war.  Emboldened  by  this, 
on  October  18  the  Massachusetts  legislature  proposed 
a  convention  of  the  New  England  States  "to  lay  the 
foundation  of  a  radical  reform  in  the  national  compact 
by  inviting  to  a  future  convention  a  deputation  from 
all  the  other  States  of  the  Union."  Agreeably  to  this 
proposition  delegates  from  Massachusetts,  Rhode 
Island,  Connecticut,  and  the  Federalist  counties  of 
New  Hampshire  and  Vermont  met  at  Hartford,  Ct., 
on  December  15.  It  continued  in  session  until 
January  5,  1815,  when  it  presented  a  report  in  which 
a  number  of  constitutional  amendments  were  proposed, 
which,  owing  to  the  signing  of  the  treaty  of  peace  at 

1  The  reader  is  referred  for  a  report  of  these  debates  to  Great  Debates 
in  American  History,  vol.  ii.,  chap.  vii. 


338  American  Debate  [1803- 

Ghent  on  December  25,  were  not  acted  upon  by  any 
of  the  State  legislatures  or  county  organizations 
represented. 

The  report  cited  the  invasions  of  State  and  popular 
rights  which  it  considered  were  being  made  by  the  Adminis 
tration.  The  two  main  abuses  claimed  were  (i)  military 
conscription,  thereby  converting  the  free  militia  into  a 
standing  army  which  was  under  exclusive  executive  control 
as  evidenced  by  the  sending  of  such  troops  raised  by  States 
for  home  defense  into  Canada  as  an  invading  force,  and  so 
converting  the  war,  undertaken  for  defense  into  one  of 
offense;  and  (2)  sectional  discrimination  in  legislation,  where 
by  the  burden  of  taxes  fell  more  heavily  on  the  States  north 
of  the  Potomac  than  on  those  south  of  it,  and  commerce, 
"the  vital  spring  of  New  England's  prosperity,"  was 
annihilated,  to  the  relative  aggrandizement  of  the  other 
more  agricultural  States. 

Nine  minor  abuses  were  mentioned,  chief  of  which  were: 
(i)  the  seizure  of  the  chief  executive  offices  by  a  political 
combination  of  certain  States  in  order  to  control  public 
affairs  in  perpetual  succession;  (2)  deprivation  of  judges  of 
their  offices  in  violation  of  the  Constitution;  (3)  abuse  of 
patronage  in  order  to  acquire  willing  and  unscrupulous 
tools  of  the  Administration;  (4)  admission  of  new  Western 
States,  unfitted  for  the  privilege  of  membership  in  the  Union 
in  order  to  destroy  the  original  balance  of  power;  (5)  the 
easy  admission  of  aliens  to  citizenship,  operating  as  an 
inducement  for  malcontent  subjects  of  foreign  governments 
to  flock  to  this  country  in  quest  of  executive  patronage,  to  be 
repaid  by  servile  devotion  to  the  Administration,  and  (6) 
cultivation  of  prejudice  against  Great  Britain  and  of  par 
tiality  toward  France  by  false  statement  of  the  relative 
resources  of  these  nations,  and  of  our  political  relations 
toward  them.1 

1  It  will  be  noted  that  the  Convention,  in  its  endeavor  to  present  an 
imposing  indictment  of  the  Madison  Administration  were  compelled  to 


1823]  National  Defense  339 

These,  said  the  report,  were  "the  principal  objections 
against  precipitate  measures  tending  to  disunite  the  States, 
and,  when  examined  in  connection  with  the  Farewell 
Address  of  the  Father  of  his  Country,  they  must,  it  is 
believed,  be  deemed  conclusive."  If  the  measures  are  not 
removed,  or  if  the  causes  of  sectional  bitterness  are  found 
to  be  radical  and  permanent,  "a  separation,  by  equitable 
arrangement,  will  be  preferable  to  an  alliance  by  constraint, 
among  nominal  friends,  but  real  enemies,  inflamed  by 
mutual  hatred  and  jealousy,  and  inviting,  by  intestine 
divisions,  contempt  and  aggression  from  abroad." 

Accordingly  the  Convention  proposed  the  following 
amendments  to  the  Constitution : 

1.  Abolition  of  the  section  counting  five  slaves  as  three 

freemen  in  apportioning  Representatives. 

2.  Modification  of  the  terms  of  admission  of  new  States. 

3.  Restriction  of  the  power  of  embargo,  etc. 

4.  Restriction  of  the  war-making  power  to  defensive 

war. 

5.  Exclusion  of  future  foreign-born  citizens  from  office. 

6.  Limitation  of  a  President  to  a  single  term. 

The  Convention  dissolved  with  the  statement  that, 
if  its  demands  were  not  heeded,  another  convention 
would  be  called  "with  such  powers  and  instructions  as 
the  exigency  of  a  crisis  so  momentous  may  require." 
This  was  accepted  at  the  time  and  thereafter  as  a 
threat  of  secession. 

The  ending  of  the  war  rendered  such  a  further  con 
vocation  unpropitious,  and  thereafter  the  New  England 

include  all  the  acts  that  had  been  opposed  by  the  Federalists  from  the 
beginning  of  Jefferson's  Administration.  This  proved  that  the  Federal 
ists,  like  the  Bourbons,  "never  learned  nor  forgot,"  even  when  events 
had  thoroughly  proved  the  wisdom  and  stability  of  the  measures  which 
they  had  unsuccessfully  opposed. 


34°  American  Debate 

States  never  contemplated  secession,  but  became  more 
and  more  national  in  sentiment.  Nevertheless  Southern 
ers  continually  cast  up  to  the  North  the  Hartford 
Convention  as  interdicting  any  complaint  from  that 
quarter  against  secession  by  the  South. 

The  same  spirit  which  had  caused  the  United  States 
to  purchase  Louisiana — the  fear  of  a  monarchical  power 
as  a  neighbor — actuated  the  various  measures  which 
culminated  in  the  promulgation  of  the  Monroe  Doc 
trine  as  a  comprehensive  policy  of  national  defense. 

Washington's  Farewell  Address.  All  these  measures 
had  as  their  principle  the  dictum,  "America  for  Ameri 
cans.  "  This  was  complementary  to  the  foreign  policy 
of  the  Republic,  "No  entangling  alliances  with  Europe," 
which  received  its  fullest  expression  in  the  Farewell 
Address  of  President  Washington  when,  in  September, 
1796,  he  declined  another  election.1 

After  warning  his  countrymen,  to  avoid  sectional 
jealousy  and  partisan  strife  as  tending  to  disrupt  the 
Union,  Washington  had  said,  with  special  reference  to 
Great  Britain  and  France: 

"Nothing  is  more  essential  than  that  permanent,  in- 

1  Thus  establishing  a  precedent  which  thus  far  no  President  had 
broken  by  serving  more  than  two  terms,  although  Theodore  Roosevelt 
sought  an  election  which,  if  successful,  would  have  resulted  in  an 
administration  longer  in  total  duration  than  Washington's. 

Indeed,  at  the  close  of  his  first  term,  Washington  contemplated 
refusing  a  second  election,  and  submitted  to  James  Madison  certain 
sentiments  on  the  subject  which  he  desired  him  to  incorporate  for  him 
in  a  "Farewell  Address."  Owing  to  the  general  pressure  brought  to 
bear  upon  him  to  continue  in  office,  Washington  did  not  use  this  com 
position.  When  the  second  "  Farewell  Address  "  was  delivered,  Madison 
surmised  that  Washington  had  employed  some  one  else  to  phrase  his 
sentiments  —  and  opined  that  this  was  Hamilton.  The  address  is 
given  in  full  on  page  58  of  volume  two  of  Great  Debates  in  American 
History. 


1823]  National  Defense  341 

veterate  antipathies  against  particular  nations,  and 
passionate  attachments  for  others,  should  be  excluded,  and 
that  in  place  of  them  just  and  amicable  feelings  toward  all 
should  be  cultivated.  The  nation  which  indulges  toward 
another  an  habitual  hatred  or  an  habitual  fondness,  is  in 
some  degree  a  slave.  It  is  a  slave  to  its  animosity  or  its 
affection,  either  of  which  is  sufficient  to  lead  it  astray  from 
its  duty  and  its  interest.  .  .  . 

"Against  the  insidious  wiles  of  foreign  influence  .  .  . 
the  jealousy  of  a  free  people  ought  to  be  constantly  awake. 
.  .  .  The  great  rule  of  conduct  for  us  in  regard  to  foreign 
nations,  is  in  extending  our  commercial  relations  to  have 
with  them  as  little  connection  as  possible.  .  .  .  Europe 
has  a  set  of  primary  interests  which  to  us  have  none,  or  a 
very  remote,  relation.  Hence  she  must  be  engaged  in 
frequent  controversies,  the  causes  of  which  are  essentially 
foreign  to  our  concerns.  Hence,  therefore,  it  must  be 
unwise  in  us  to  implicate  ourselves  ...  in  the  ordinary 
combinations  and  collisions  of  her  friendships  and  enmities. 

"Our  detached  and  distant  situation  invites  and  en 
ables  us  to  pursue  a  different  course.  .  .  .  Why  forego 
the  advantages  of  so  peculiar  a  situation?  Why  quit  our 
own,  to  stand  on  foreign  ground  ?  .  .  .  'Tis  our  true  policy 
to  steer  clear  of  permanent  alliances  with  any  portion  of 
the  foreign  world. " 

Recognition    of    Latin-American    Republics.     The 

necessity  for  the  promulgation  of  the  Monroe  Doctrine 
arose  as  a  result  of  controversy  over  what  should  be 
our  attitude  toward  other  republics  on  the  American 
continent,  which,  as  we  had  done,  were  establishing 
themselves  as  independent  of  European  sovereignty. 
During  the  first  quarter  of  the  nineteenth  century 
there  occurred  a  general  revolt  under  the  leadership  of 
General  Simon  Bolivar  against  Spanish  rule  in  South 
America.  Among  the  first  of  the  Spanish  colonies  to 


342  American  Debate  ['803- 

revolt  and  establish  fairly  stable  republican  govern 
ments  were  the  provinces  of  the  river  Plata.  The 
question  arose  in  1818  as  to  the  recognition  of  these 
governments,  which  was  opposed  by  the  Spanish 
minister,  Senor  Onis.  On  March  24  Henry  Clay  pro 
posed  in  the  House  to  appropriate  money  to  send  a 
minister  to  Buenos  Aires,  and  on  the  next  day  supported 
the  resolution.  He  said: 

"I  am  no  propagandist.  I  would  not  seek  to  force  upon 
other  nations  our  principles  and  our  liberty  if  they  did  not 
want  them.  .  .  .  But  if  an  abused  and  oppressed  people 
will  their  freedom;  if  they  seek  to  establish  it;  if,  in  truth, 
they  have  established  it,  we  have  a  right  as  a  sovereign 
power  to  notice  the  fact,  and  to  act  as  circumstances  and 
our  interest  require.  I  would  say,  in  the  language  of  the 
venerated  Father  of  our  Country:  'Born  in  a  land  of 
liberty,  my  anxious  recollections,  my  sympathetic  feelings, 
and  my  best  wishes  are  irresistibly  excited  whensoever,  in 
any  country,  I  see  an  oppressed  nation  unfurl  the  banners 
of  freedom.'1 

"We  are  the  natural  head  of  the  American  family.  .  .  . 
I  would  not  intermeddle  in  the  affairs  of  Europe.  I  would 
not  even  intermeddle  in  those  of  other  parts  of  America 
farther  than  to  exert  the  incontestable  rights  appertaining 
to  us  as  a  free,  sovereign,  and  independent  power;  and  I 
contend  that  the  accrediting  of  a  minister  from  the  new 
republic  is  such  a  right.  We  are  bound  to  receive  him  if 
we  mean  to  be  really  neutral.  If  the  royal  belligerent  is 
represented  ...  at  our  government,  the  Republican 
belligerent  ought  also  to  be  heard.  Give  Senor  Onis  his 
conge,  or  receive  the  Republican  minister.  Unless  you  do  so 
your  neutrality  is  nominal. " 

1  President  Washington's  reply  to  the  address  of  M.  Adet,  the  French 
minister,  on  his  presentation  to  the  United  States  of  the  colors  of 
France  in  1796. 


1823]  National  Defense  343 

On  March  8,  1822,  President  Monroe,  in  a  message 
to  Congress,  advised  recognition  of  the  de  facto  republi 
can  governments.  The  House  voted  to  extend  this  on 
March  28,  by  a  vote  of  167  to  I,  Robert  S.  Garnett 
[Va.]1  casting  the  sole  negative  vote.  Suffering  from 
the  odium  of  his  action  he  later  asked  to  have  his 
reasons  therefor  recorded  on  the  Journal.  This  was  at 
first  refused,  but  afterwards,  on  sober  second  thought, 
granted. 

Mr.  Garnett  declared  that,  in  his  opinion,  recognition 
was  an  empty  form  unless  it  involved  us  in  aiding,  by  armed 
force,  the  republics  to  maintain  their  independence,  and 
to  this  he  was  opposed.  Let  the  republics  first  demonstrate 
their  capacity  for  self-government. 

In  his  message  of  December  2,  1823  President  Mon 
roe  announced  the  famous  Doctrine  that  bears  his 
name,  and,  because  it  was  the  crowning  act  of  his 
career,  it  is  in  place  here  to  recount  his  former  services 
to  the  country. 

Sketch  of  Monroe.  James  Monroe  was  born  in 
Westmoreland  county,  Va.,  in  1758;  was  graduated 
from  William  and  Mary  in  1776;  rose  to  the  rank  of 
major  in  the  Revolution,  acquiring  a  reputation  as  a 
faithful  and  brave  soldier.  After  the  war  he  studied 
law  under  Thomas  Jefferson,  imbibing  also  his  political 
principles  in  which  he  never  wavered.  He  served  in 
the  Virginia  legislature  (1782)  and  in  the  old  Con 
gress  (1783-86).  As  we  have  already  seen,  he  opposed 
ratification  of  the  Constitution  in  the  Virginia  conven 
tion  on  State  Rights  grounds.  He  was  a  member  of  the 

1  Robert  Selden  Garnett,  Sr.,  was  a  graduate  of  Princeton  and  a 
lawyer.  He  served  in  Congress  from  1817  to  1827.  He  was  a  political 
supporter  and  personal  friend  of  Andrew  Jackson. 


344  American  Debate  [1803- 

Senate  from  1790  to  1794,  when  he  was  sent  as  minister 
to  France.  He  ardently  supported  the  revolutionary 
principles  and  aspirations  of  the  French  Republic, 
with  the  result  that  he  was  recalled  by  President 
Washington,  who  was  desirous  of  maintaining  an 
impartial  attitude  in  foreign  controversies.  On  his 
return  to  America  he  was  hailed  as  a  hero  by  the  pro- 
French  Opposition.  In  1797  he  published  A  View  of 
the  Executive,  which  reflected  on  Washington's  conduct 
in  defending  his  own.  Monroe  was  at  once  elected 
Governor  of  Virginia  by  the  Republicans,  holding  the 
office  from  1799  to  1802.  In  1803  he  was  sent  to 
France  to  assist  Minister  Livingston  in  negotiating  the 
Louisiana  Purchase.  Monroe  proceeded  from  Paris 
to  London  as  minister  to  the  Court  of  St.  James. 
Here,  as  has  been  related,  he  negotiated  in  conjunc 
tion  with  William  Pinkney  the  abortive  treaty  be 
tween  Great  Britain  and  the  United  States.  Monroe 
returned  home  in  1807,  and  published  an  elaborate 
defense  of  his  conduct.  Again  he  won  popular  approval, 
being  sent  to  the  Virginia  legislature,  and,  in  1811, 
receiving  election  to  the  office  of  Governor,  where  he 
remained  for  only  a  short  time,  President  Madison 
appointing  him  Secretary  of  State.  This  office  he  held 
until  1817,  also  acting  in  1814-15  as  Secretary  of  War. 
His  natural  succession  to  the  highest  place  in  the 
government  was  recognized,  and  he  was  elected  Presi 
dent  in  1817  by  the  overwhelming  majority  of  183 
votes  to  34,  these  being  cast  by  New  England  for  Rufus 
King,  the  Federalist  candidate.  He  was  reflected  in 
1821  by  an  almost  unanimous  vote,  one  elector  alone 
refusing  to  cast  his  ballot  for  him  in  order  that  Wash 
ington's  unanimous  choice  for  the  place  might  remain 
without  parallel.  Owing  to  the  lack  of  party  strife  in 


1823]  National  Defense  345 

Monroe's  Administration  it  was  called  the  "Era  of 
Good  Feeling." 

His  career  after  retiring  to  private  life  may  be  found 
in  the  encyclopedias. 

Richard  W.  Thompson,  in  his  Recollections  of 
Sixteen  Presidents  (1894),  after  a  description  of  the 
rather  commonplace  physical  characteristics  of  Monroe, 
praises  with  moderation  his  mental  and  moral  qualities: 

"He  was  a  fine  specimen  of  what,  in  my  boyhood,  was 
called  an  'old  Virginia  gentleman' — sincere  in  manner, 
simple  in  tastes,  courteous  in  deportment,  and  manly  in 
intercourse  with  all." 

Of  his  qualities  as  a  statesman  Daniel  C.  Gilman 
remarks,  in  his  James  Monroe  (1883)  in  the  American 
Statesmen  Series: 

' '  His  numerous  state  papers  are  not  remarkable  in  style 
or  in  thought,  but  his  views  were  generally  sound,  and  .  .  . 
approved  by  the  public  voice.  .  .  .  The  one  idea  which  he 
represents  consistently  from  the  beginning  to  the  end  of 
his  career  is  this,  that  America  is  for  Americans. " 

The  Monroe  Doctrine.  The  two  declarations  which 
compose  his  famous  Doctrine  appeared  in  widely 
separated  parts  of  his  Message.  The  first  was: 

"That  the  American  continents,  by  the  free  and  in 
dependent  conditions  which  they  have  assumed  and  main 
tain,  are  henceforth  not  to  be  considered  as  subjects  for 
future  colonization  by  any  European  power." 

The  occasion  for  this  declaration  was  as  follows: 
Russia  claimed  the  Pacific  coast  as  far  southward  as 
fifty-one  degrees  north  latitude.  Great  Britain  and  the 


American  Debate  [1803- 

United  States  opposed  this  claim  below  fifty-four 
degrees  and  forty  minutes,  and  disputed  between  them 
selves  the  possession  not  only  of  the  coast  but  of  the 
interior  western  country,  Great  Britain  claiming  as 
her  southern  boundary  the  line  of  the  mouth  of  the 
Columbia  river  (forty-six  degrees)  and  the  United 
States  as  her  northern  boundary  fifty-four  degrees  and 
forty  minutes.  In  1818  the  two  countries  agreed  by 
treaty  to  a  joint  occupancy  for  ten  years  of  the  disputed 
territory.  Great  Britain  began  at  once  to  explore  the 
country  to  establish  a  claim  to  its  possession  on  the 
expiration  of  the  treaty. z 

On  July  2,  1823,  John  Quincy  Adams,  Secretary  of 
State,2  wrote  to  Richard  Rush,  American  minister  to 
Great  Britain,  a  declaration  for  Rush  to  present,  to  that 
government  that  the  continent  of  America  "is  occupied 
by  civilized  nations,  and  is  inaccessible  to  Europeans 
and  to  each  other  on  that  footing  alone, "  meaning  that 
no  more  original  titles  could  be  secured  by  discovery, 
exploration,  or  settlement.  Five  months  later  Adams 
caused  the  President  to  insert  such  a  declaration  in  his 
Message  without  the  knowledge  of  the  rest  of  the  Cabi 
net.  The  British  Government  denied  that  the  declara 
tion  was  in  accordance  with  the  facts,  asserting  that  land 
still  remained  to  which  there  was  as  yet  no  original  title. 

The  second  declaration  in  the  Message  followed  a 
statement  of  our  national  policy,  as  expressed  by 
Washington  in  his  Farewell  Address,  toward  foreign 
powers.  It  ran : 

"We  owe  it,  therefore,  to  candor  and  to  the  amicable 
relations  existing  between  the  United  States  and  those 
powers  to  declare  that  we  should  consider  any  attempt  on 

« See  Vol.  II.,  Chap.  VI. 

a  The  sketch  of  Adams  is  reserved  for  Volume  II. 


1823]  National  Defense  347 

their  part  to  extend  their  system  to  any  portion  of  this 
hemisphere  as  dangerous  to  our  peace  and  safety.  With  the 
existing  colonies  or  dependencies  of  any  European  power 
we  ...  shall  not  interfere;  but  with  the  governments  who 
have  declared  their  independence,  and  maintained  it,  and 
whose  independence  we  have  .  .  .  acknowledged,  we  could 
not  view  any  interposition  for  the  purpose  of  oppressing 
them,  or  controlling,  in  any  other  manner,  their  destiny 
by  any  European  power,  in  any  other  light  than  as  the 
manifestation  of  an  unfriendly  disposition  toward  the 
United  States. " 

This  declaration  was  inspired  by  George  Canning, 
British  Secretary  of  Foreign  Affairs,  on  account  of  the 
following  situation.  The  "Holy  Alliance"  of  conti 
nental  European  monarchies,  at  its  congress  at  Verona 
in  1822,  had  agreed  to  check  the  spread  of  republican 
ism  throughout  the  world  by  interfering  with  its  greatest 
source  of  propagation,  America.  This  threatened  the 
subjugation  of  the  revolted  Spanish- American  provinces, 
and,  possibly,  of  the  United  States.  Canning,  fearing 
for  his  own  country  the  aggrandizement  of  absolutism, 
wrote  to  Mr.  Rush  to  urge  our  government  to  oppose 
the  contemplated  intervention.  The  American  minister 
sent  the  letter  to  President  Monroe,  who,  after  con 
sultation  with  ex-President  Jefferson,  followed  its 
advice,  as  we  have  seen. 

The  determined  attitude  of  the  United  States  caused 
the  Holy  Alliance  to  hold  in  abeyance  its  contemplated 
action.  Thus  was  fulfilled  the  first  statement  in 
Canning's  famous  prophecy  that 

"The  New  World  had  been  called  into  existence  to 
redress  the  balance  of  the  Old,  and  would  in  time  outweigh 
and  topple  over  the  fabrics  of  kingcraft  upon  which  so 
many  wise  men  had  labored  for  thousands  of  years." 


CHAPTER  XI 

NULLIFICATION 

I828-I833 

Protests  of  South  Carolina  and  Georgia  against  the  Tariff  of  1828  — 
President  Adams  on  the  Subject  —  Senate  Debate  on  the  Nature  of 
the  Union:  in  Favor  of  State  Rights  Theory,  Robert  Y.  Hayne 
[S.  C.];  Opposed,  Daniel  Webster  [Mass.]—  Sketches  of  the  De 
baters  —  Threats  of  Secession  in  Connection  with  Tariff  of  1832  — 
House  Debate  on  the  Bill:  in  Favor,  Henry  Clay  [Ky.];  Opposed, 
Augustine  S.  Clayton  [Ga.]  —  Sketch  of  Clayton  —  Ordinance  of 
Secession  by  South  Carolina  —  President  Jackson's  Proclamation 
and  Messages  against  It  —  Senate  Debate  on  the  "Force  Bill": 
in  Favor,  Felix  Grundy  [Tenn.]  and  Mr.  Webster;  Opposed,  John 
C.  Calhoun  [S.  C.]—  Sketch  of  Grundy—  Bill  is  Passed,  and  South 
Carolina  Succumbs. 


HE  Act  of  1828,  called  the  "Tariff  of  Abominations," 
1  roused  the  ire  of  the  South,  especially  South 
Carolina  and  Georgia.  Mass  meetings  were  held  in 
these  States  at  which  resolutions  were  passed  threat 
ening  secession  from  the  Union  unless  the  bill  were 
repealed,  and  calling  on  the  other  Southern  States  to 
adopt  the  same  attitude.  However,  this  call  was  not 
heeded,  since  there  was  general  expectation  that  a 
Southern  man,  Andrew  Jackson  [Tenn.],  would  be 
chosen  President  in  the  coming  election,  and  that  he 
would  uphold  the  cause  of  his  section.  Indeed,  South 
Carolina  and  Georgia,  after  recording  their  formal 

348 


[1828-1833]  Nullification  349 

protests  in  the  Senate  against  the  Tariff  Act,1  also 
decided  to  cease  their  agitation  and  await  results. 

The  North  in  general  failed  to  realize  the  gravity  of 
the  situation.  President  Adams,  however,  felt  it,  and 
in  his  message  of  December  2,  1828,  recommended  that, 
if  it  were  found  that  the  Act  "relieved  the  manufac 
turer"  only  by  "  aggravating  the  burden  of  the  planter," 
a  careful  revision  of  it  should  be  made  to  remedy  the 
inequality.  Secession  he  conceived  to  be  theoretically 
possible  but  not  probable  in  execution. 

"The  members  of  the  State  and  general  governments 
are  all  under  oath  to  support  both.  .  .  .  The  case  of  a 
conflict  between  these  two  powers  has  not  been  supposed; 
nor  has  any  provision  been  made  for  it  in  our  institutions — 
as  a  virtuous  nation  of  ancient  times  [Rome]  existed  for 
more  than  five  centuries  without  a  law  for  the  punishment 
of  parricide." 

Influential  Northern  statesmen  supported  the  Presi 
dent  in  his  laudable  attempt  to  avert  the  peril  of  seces 
sion,  and  a  virtual  armistice  between  the  sections  of 
the  country  ensued.  Arms  gave  way  to  the  toga; 
indeed,  the  conflict  in  Congress  became  one  of  ideas 
rather  than  of  opposing  legislative  acts,  especially 
since  it  was  a  traditional  policy  of  the  Republican  party, 
instituted  by  its  founders,  Jefferson  and  Madison,  in 
the  case  of  the  Kentucky  and  Virginia  Resolutions,  to 
prepare  the  way  for  radical  constitutional  changes  by 
academic  discussion  of  theories  of  government. 

Upon  the  elevation  of  Calhoun  to  the  office  of  Vice- 
President  in  1825,  his  mantle  as  floor  leader  of  his 
party  fell  upon  his  successor  as  a  Senator  from  South 
Carolina,  Robert  Y.  Hayne. 

1  See  Great  Debates  in  American  History,  vol.  v.,  pp.  28  and  30. 


350  American  Debate  lisas- 

Sketch  of  Hayne.  Robert  Young  Hayne,  admitted 
to  the  bar  before  he  was  twenty-one,  enlisted  at  that 
age  in  the  Second  War  with  Great  Britain.  At  its 
close  he  established  practice  in  his  profession  in  Charles 
ton,  and  was  sent  to  the  State  assembly,  becoming  in 
1818  its  Speaker.  From  1818  to  1822  he  was  Attorney- 
General  of  the  State,  and  in  1823  was  elected  to  the 
United  States  Senate.  In  both  rhetoric  and  delivery 
his  speeches  were  distinguished  by  beauty  and  grace, 
and  the  charm  of  the  orator's  personality  soon  caused 
him  to  be  looked  upon  by  the  South  as  the  ablest 
champion  of  the  rights  of  that  section  of  the  Union. 

In  the  minds  of  the  State  Rights  advocates  Hayne's 
superiority  in  eloquence  to  Calhoun  more  than  com 
pensated  for  his  inferiority  in  argument  to  that  most 
intellectual  and  astute  of  all  Southern  statesmen,  and 
their  unquestioned  belief  in  the  invincible  prowess  of 
their  leaders  and  in  the  invulnerability  of  the  doctrines 
of  their  party  (which  is  a  temperamental  characteristic 
of  Southerners)  caused  them,  with  few  exceptions,  to 
expect,  and  even  to  assume,  a  triumph  over  whatever 
Northern  statesman  should  dare  to  accept  their 
champion's  challenge  to  debate  the  issue  between  the 
sections,  namely,  the  nature,  powers,  and  limitations  of 
the  Federal  Government. 

The  Webster-Hayne  Debate.  The  broad  scope  of 
such  a  subject  and  its  fundamental  reference  to 
American  government  made  possible  its  parliamentary 
application  to  almost  any  subject  which  might  be 
brought  before  Congress,  and  Hayne  seized  the  oppor 
tunity  for  its  discussion  which  was  presented  by  a 
motion  that  on  its  face  seemed  far  removed  from  any 
relation  to  the  State  Rights  doctrine.  This  was  a 
resolution  introduced  in  the  Senate  on  January  19, 


1833]  Nullification  351 

1830,  by  Samuel  A.  Foot,  of  Connecticut,  inquiring 
into  the  expediency  of  suspending  the  sale  of  public 
lands. 

Senator  Hayne  began  by  deprecating  the  sale  of  the 
public  lands  for  money  to  accumulate  in  the  Treasury, 
since  this  would  lead  to  corruption  and  the  "consolidation" 
of  Federal  power,  which  by  its  "  control  over  States  as  well 
as  over  great  interests  in  the  country,  nay,  even  over  cor 
porations  and  individuals"  would  be  "utterly  destructive 
to  the  purity  and  fatal  to  the  duration  of  our  institu 
tions,  "  and  "equally  fatal  to  the  sovereignty  and  independ 
ence  of  the  States. " 

"It  is,"  continued  Hayne,  "only  by  a  strict  adherence 
to  the  limitations  imposed  by  the  Constitution  on  the 
Federal  Government  that  this  system  works  well  and  can 
answer  the  great  ends  for  which  it  was  instituted."  He 
therefore  proposed  a  relinquishment  of  Federal  public 
lands  lying  in  organized  States  to  these  States  upon  in 
demnification  at  cost,  and  the  administration  of  the  rest 
of  the  public  domain  with  a  view  to  the  creation  from  them 
of  "great  and  flourishing  communities,  to  be  formed  into 
free  and  independent  States,  to  be  vested  in  due  season  with 
the  control  of  all  the  lands  within  their  respective  limits." 

This  introduction  of  the  State  Rights  theory  in 
connection  with  a  proposal  to  make  a  revolutionary 
change  in  one  of  the  most  important  policies  of  the 
Republic,  amounting  to  the  relinquishment  by  the 
Federal  Government  of  its  greatest  material  asset, 
brought  to  his  feet  in  unrestrainable  protest  the  leading 
statesman  of  the  North,  Daniel  Webster,  Senator 
from  Massachusetts. 

Sketch  of  Webster.  In  boyhood  Daniel  Webster 
was  of  puny  frame  and  weak  constitution,  which  re 
lieved  him  from  the  hard  work  of  the  farm  on  which  his 


352  American  Debate 

father  eked  out  his  small  earnings  as  a  country  lawyer. 
This  gave  the  lad  leisure  for  reading  which  he  improved 
so  well  that  his  parents  made  great  sacrifices  to  educate 
him,  and  he  was  sent  to  his  father's  Alma  Mater,  Dart 
mouth  College.  Here  he  overcame  his  natural  shyness, 
and  won  such  a  reputation  for  eloquence  that  he  was 
chosen  to  deliver  the  formal  oration  at  an  Independence 
Day  celebration  in  the  college  town  (Hanover).  The 
themes  he  touched  upon  were  those  that  remained 
the  passion  of  his  life- — love  of  country,  fidelity  to  the 
Constitution,  and  the  necessity  and  nobility  of  the 
Union.  After  graduation  (at  the  age  of  nineteen)  he 
began  the  study  of  law,  but  relinquished  it  for  a  time 
to  earn  money  by  teaching  to  help  his  elder  brother 
through  college.  Securing  a  position  as  clerk  in  a 
Boston  law  office,  he  completed  his  studies  and  was 
admitted  to  the  bar  at  the  age  of  twenty-three,  and 
opened  an  office  in  a  small  town.  Two  years  later, 
having  acquired  a  good  practice,  he  turned  it  over  to 
his  brother,  and  removed  to  Portsmouth,  N.  H.,  where 
he  soon  achieved  a  reputation  second  only  to  that  of 
Jeremiah  Mason,  one  of  the  most  noted  lawyers  of  the 
country,  to  whom  he  was  frequently  opposed  in  cases. 
He  was  a  Federalist,  and  opposed  Jefferson's  Embargo 
and  the  war  with  Great  Britain.  An  eloquent  speech 
on  the  latter  subject  in  1812  led  to  his  election  to 
Congress,  where  he  was  placed  on  the  Committee  on 
Foreign  Relations.  He  rapidly  rose  to  leadership  in  the 
Opposition,  speaking  against  the  various  war  measures 
of  the  Administration,  especially  conscription  and  the 
invasion  of  Canada.  Like  Quincy,  however,  he  sup 
ported  the  increase  of  the  navy.  Wiser  and  more 
patriotic  than  others  of  his  party,  he  kept  New  Hamp 
shire  as  a  State  out  of  the  Hartford  Convention. 


Nullification  353 

In  June,  1816,  he  removed  to  Boston,  and,  on  the 
expiration  in  1817  of  his  second  term  in  the  House, 
retired  to  law  practice  in  order  to  accumulate  a  com 
petency.  Soon  he  was  earning  $20,000  a  year,  a  great 
sum  in  that  day.  He  was  the  attorney  for  the  college  in 
the  famous  Dartmouth  College  case,  before  the  Surpeme 
Court,  which  he  won,  preserving  his  Alma  Mater  from 
the  grasping  control  of  the  State  of  New  Hampshire, 
and  establishing  the  independence  of  corporations  in 
their  chartered  rights.  As  the  Republicans,  who  were 
in  power  in  the  State  legislature,  had  made  the  case  a 
party  question,  this  was  hailed  as  a  great  Federalist 
triumph.  Indeed,  the  decision  is  reckoned  as  having 
gone  farther  than  any  other  of  our  highest  court  in 
limiting  State  sovereignty  and  extending  Federal 
jurisdiction. 

Mr.  Webster  was  a  member  of  the  Massachusetts 
constitutional  convention  of  1820.  His  argument  in 
favor  of  property  representation  (in  the  Senate)  is, 
probably,  the  ablest  on  that  subject.  In  the  same  year, 
at  the  celebration  of  the  second  centennial  of  the  landing 
of  the  Pilgrims,  he  delivered  the  finest  commemorative 
oration  ever  heard  in  the  country — to  be  excelled, 
however,  in  1825,  in  his  speech  on  the  foundation  of  the 
Bunker  Hill  monument.  He  reached  the  pinnacle  of 
classic  oratory  in  the  following  year  in  his  eulogies  of 
Adams  and  Jefferson.  The  unifying  spirit  of  this 
oratorical  trilogy  is  patriotism  in  the  special  form  of 
sacrifice  of  selfish  individual  interests  for  the  common 
good.  Like  the  Dartmouth  case  they  greatly  con 
tributed  to  nationality,  the  cause  of  the  Union. 

From  1823  to  1829  Webster  again  served  in  Congress, 
being  appointed  Chairman  of  the  Judiciary  Committee. 
In  this  capacity  he  drafted  and  secured  the  passage  of 

23 


354  American  Debate  [1828- 

a  "Crimes  Act"  which  remodeled  the  entire  criminal 
jurisprudence  of  the  United  States.  In  January,  1824, 
he  proposed  a  resolution  to  send  a  commissioner  to 
Greece,  which  was  in  the  throes  of  revolution.  It  was 
not  adopted,  but  materially  contributed  toward  the 
creation  of  that  sympathy  throughout  the  civilized 
world  which  led  to  the  liberation  of  a  portion  of  Greece 
from  Turkish  rule.  In  the  debate  on  the  resolution 
(January  19-24,  1824)  he  was  opposed  by  John  Ran 
dolph.1  For  Mr.  Webster's  debates  on  economic 
issues  the  reader  is  referred  to  Volume  II. 

At  this  time  he  was  an  independent  in  party  politics. 
The  Federalist  party  was  in  ruins,  and  the  National 
Republican  party  was  only  beginning  to  form  out  of  its 
wreckage  under  the  leadership  of  Adams  and  Clay. 
Webster  was  not  yet  in  entire  sympathy  with  their 
purposes,  opposing  in  particular  Mr.  Clay's  self-styled 
"American  system"  of  high  protective  duties. 

In  1827  Webster  was  elected  to  the  Senate.  In  the 
following  year  he  reversed  his  position  of  1824,  and 
supported  the  act  of  that  year  known  as  the  "Tariff 
of  Abominations, "  and  became  the  forensic  protagonist 
in  the  opposition  to  the  resultant  "Nullification" 
movement  led  by  Calhoun.2 

Of  his  personal  appearance  and  characteristics  at 
this  period  Charles  Lanham  writes,  in  The  Private  Life 
of  Daniel  Webster  (1852): 

"At  the  age  of  forty  [he]  was  considered  the  handsomest 
man  in  Congress.  He  was  above  the  ordinary  size,  and 
stoutly  formed,  but  with  small  hands  and  feet,  had  a  large 

1  See  Great  Debates  in  American  History ,  vol.  ii.,  chap.  ix. 
3  For  the  events  of  Webster's  subsequent  career  the  reader  is  referred 
to  following  pages  and  the  encyclopedias. 


1833]  Nullification  355 

head,  very  high  forehead,  a  dark  complexion  [whence  his 
appellation  "Black  Dan"],  large,  black,  deeply  sunken  and 
solemn-looking  eyes,  black  hair,  very  heavy  eyebrows,  and 
fine  teeth.  To  strangers  his  countenance  appeared  stern, 
but,  when  lighted  up  by  conversation,  it  was  bland  and 
agreeable.  He  was  slow  and  stately  in  his  movements,  and 
his  dress  was  invariably  neat  and  elegant.  His  manner  of 
speaking,  both  in  conversation  and  debate,  was  slow  and 
methodical,  and  his  voice  generally  low  and  musical,  but 
when  excited,  it  rang  like  a  clarion. " 

Thomas  Carlyle  wrote  to  Ralph  Waldo  Emerson, 
on  June  24,  1839,  of  Webster: 

"He  is  a  magnificent  specimen;  you  may  say  to  all  the 
world,  This  is  your  Yankee  Englishman,  such  Limbs  we 
make  in  Yankeeland !  As  a  Logic-fencer,  Advocate  or  Par 
liamentary  Hercules,  one  would  incline  to  back  him  at  first 
sight  against  all  the  extant  world.  The  tanned  complexion, 
that  amorphous  craglike  face;  the  dull  black  eyes  under 
their  precipice  of  brows,  like  dull  anthracite  furnaces, 
needing  only  to  be  blown;  the  mastiff-mouth,  accurately 
closed: — I  have  not  traced  as  much  of  silent  Berserkir- 
rage  ...  in  any  other  man.  '  I  guess  I  should  not  like  to 
be  your  nigger!'" 

William  Cleaver  Wilkinson,  in  an  article  on  Webster 
in  the  Century  Magazine,  vol.  xxiii.,  p.  538,  enumerates 
the  various  appellations  given  to  him  by  his  contem 
poraries  : 

"He  was  the  'godlike  Daniel'  to  his  countrymen  in 
general;  .  .  .  [to]  the  educated  men  .  .  .  'the  Olympian.' 
If  he  went  abroad,  some  Englishman  said  he  '  looked  like  a 
cathedral,'  or  Sydney  Smith,  with  irreverent  homage  to  his 
Titan  might,  said  he  'was  a  steam-engine  in  breeches. '" 


356  American  Debate  U8a8- 

Of  his  moral  qualities  Senator  Henry  Cabot  Lodge 
writes  in  his  Daniel  Webster  (1883)  in  the  American 
Statesmen  Series : 

"His  moral  character  was  not  equal  to  his  intellectual 
force.  All  the  errors  he  ever  committed,  whether  in  public 
or  in  private  life,  in  political  action  or  in  regard  to  money 
obligations,  came  from  moral  weakness.  He  was  deficient 
in  that  intensity  of  conviction  which  carries  men  beyond 
and  above  all  triumphs  of  statesmanship,  and  makes  them 
the  embodiment  of  the  great  moral  forces  which  move  the 
world.  If  Mr.  Webster's  moral  powers  had  equalled  his 
intellectual  greatness,  he  would  have  had  no  rival  in  our 
history." 

Senator  Lodge  continues,  with  a  tribute  to  Webster 
for  the  central  principle  of  his  statesmanship : 

"He  stands  today  as  the  pre-eminent  champion  and 
exponent  of  nationality.  He  said  once,  'there  are  no  Alle- 
ghanies  in  my  politics,'  and  he  spoke  the  exact  truth.  .  .  . 
There  is  no  taint  of  sectionalism  or  narrow  local  prejudice 
about  him.  He  towers  up  as  an  American.  .  .  .  He  did 
not  invent  the  Union,  or  discover  the  doctrine  of  nationality. 
But  he  found  the  great  fact  and  the  great  principle  ready  to 
his  hand,  and  he  lifted  them  up,  and  preached  the  gospel  of 
nationality  throughout  the  length  and  breadth  of  the  land. 
In  his  fidelity  to  this  cause  he  never  wavered  nor  faltered." 

Of  Webster's  oration  on  the  Pilgrims  John  Adams 
said: 

"If  there  be  an  American  who  can  read  it  without  tears, 
I  am  not  that  American.  Mr.  Burke  is  no  longer  entitled 
to  the  praise — the  most  consummate  orator  of  modern 
times." 


1833]  Nullification  357 

Francis  Lieber,  in  1860,  wrote  comparing  Webster's 
speeches  to  those  of  Demosthenes  for  "simplicity  and 
manliness": 

"  They  bring  before  my  mind  the  image  of  the  Cyclopean 
walls, — stone  upon  stone,  compact,  firm,  and  grand.  After 
I  had  perused,  and  aloud,  too,  the  last  speech  ...  I  took 
down  Demosthenes,  reading  him  aloud,  too.  It  did  not 
lessen  my  appreciation  of  Webster's  speech.  .  .  .  Every 
thing  in  Webster  was  capacious,  large;  he  was  a  statesman 
of  Chatham's  type,  I  think. " 

Of  Webster's  power  in  debate,  William  Mathews,  in 
his  Oratory  and  Orators  (1878),  says: 

"In  debate  Webster  was  quick  at  retort.  If  it  was  a 
personal  insult  that  aroused  the  slumbering  lion,  the  roar  of 
rage  was  appalling,  and  the  spring  and  death  blow  that 
followed  were  like  lightning. " 

Of  the  "Reply  to  Hayne"  in  particular,  Robert  C. 
Winthrop  in  an  article  on  the  subject  (1894)  in  Scrib- 
ner's  Magazine,  vol.  xv.,  p.  120,  says: 

"A  single  night  was  ...  all  that  he  had  for  immediate 
preparation  for  the  first  day's  effort,  and  one  other  night 
for  that  of  the  second  day.  .  .  .  Before  going  to  the  Senate 
Chamber  on  the  morning  of  the  first  day  he  told  Mr. 
[Edward]  Everett  that  as  to  the  defense  of  the  Constitution 
he  had  no  misgivings,  that  he  was  always  ready  for  that; 
and  that  his  only  anxiety  was  in  regard  to  the  personal  and 
sectional  parts  of  Colonel  Hayne's  attack.  As  he  entered 
the  Chamber,  John  M.  Clayton,  Senator  from  Delaware, 
said  to  him, '  Webster,  are  you  primed  and  loaded  ? '  '  Seven 
fingers,'  was  his  only  reply,  with  a  gesture  as  if  pointing  to 
a  gunbarrel. 

"He  spoke  under  great  excitement,  and  with  almost  an 


358  American  Debate  U82&- 

air  of  inspiration.  Of  his  emotions  he  said  himself  not  long 
afterward,  '  I  felt  as  if  everything  I  had  ever  seen  or  read  or 
heard  was  floating  before  me  in  one  grand  panorama,  and  I 
had  little  else  to  do  than  to  reach  up  and  cull  a  thunderbolt 
and  hurl  it  at  him  [Hayne].' " 

Senator  Webster  began  his  reply  by  expressing  deep 
regret  and  pain  at  hearing  the  sentiments  of  the 
Senator  from  South  Carolina,  which,  he  was  aware, 
were  shared  by  " certain  persons  out  of  the  Capitol," 
but  which  he  did  not  expect  so  soon  to  find  uttered 
within  its  walls. 

"Consolidation! — that  perpetual  cry,  both  of  terror  and 
delusion — consolidation !  Sir,  when  gentlemen  speak  of  the 
effects  of  a  common  fund,  belonging  to  all  the  States,  as 
having  a  tendency  to  consolidation,  what  do  they  mean? 
Do  they  mean,  or  can  they  mean,  anything  more  than  that 
the  Union  of  the  States  will  be  strengthened  by  whatever 
continues  or  furnishes  inducements  to  the  people  of  the 
States  to  hold  together?" 

To  this  species  of  "consolidation,"  said  the  Senator, 
every  true  American  ought  to  be  attached.  It  was  that 
contemplated  by  the  Fathers  of  the  Republic  when 
they  had  used  the  word  in  submitting  the  Constitution 
to  the  consideration  of  the  country,  and  had  said  that 
in  it  were  " involved  our  prosperity,  felicity,  safety; 
perhaps  our  national  existence." 

The  tendency  of  such  sentiments  as  those  uttered  by  the 
Senator  from  South  Carolina  was  "obviously  to  bring  the 
Union  into  discussion  as  a  mere  question  of  present  and 
temporary  expediency ;  nothing  more  than  a  mere  matter  of 
profit  and  loss.  The  Union  to  be  preserved  while  it  suits 
local  and  temporary  purposes  to  preserve  it;  and  to  be 


1833]  Nullification  359 

sundered  whenever  it  shall  be  found  to  thwart  such  pur 
poses. "  Standing  with  the  framers  of  the  Constitution  he 
deemed  far  otherwise.  "What  they  said  I  believe — fully 
and  sincerely  believe — that  the  Union  of  the  States  is 
essential  to  the  prosperity  and  safety  of  the  States.  I  am  a 
unionist,  and  in  this  sense  a  National  Republican.  I  would 
strengthen  the  ties  that  hold  us  together.  Far  indeed,  in 
my  wishes,  very  far  distant  be  the  day  when  our  associated 
fraternal  stripes  shall  be  severed  asunder,  and  when  that 
happy  constellation  under  which  we  have  arisen  to  so  much 
renown  shall  be  broken  up,  and  be  seen  sinking,  star  after 
star,  into  obscurity  and  night." 

The  debate  on  Senator  Foot's  resolution  had  now 
lost  its  original  relation  to  the  public  lands,  and  become 
a  controversy  on  the  nature  of  the  Union  between  the 
South  and  the  North  as  represented  by  their  respective 
champions,  the  Senator  from  South  Carolina  and  the 
Senator  from  Massachusetts.  In  his  reply  Senator 
Hayne  chose  to  regard  the  speech  of  Senator  Webster 
as  an  uncalled  for  personal  attack  on  himself  as  a 
representative  of  the  South  in  general  and  of  South 
Carolina  in  particular. 

He  repudiated  indignantly  that  he  and  those  whom  he 
represented  constituted  a  party  looking  to  disunion.  The 
Senator  from  Massachusetts,  he  said,  "had  crossed  the 
border,  had  invaded  the  State  of  South  Carolina,  and  was 
making  war  upon  her  citizens  and  endeavoring  to  overthrow 
her  principles  and  her  institutions. "  He  therefore  felt  it  his 
duty,  though  with  reluctance,  "to  carry  the  war  into  the 
enemy's  country,"  and  not  to  lay  down  arms  until  he 
should  have  obtained  "indemnity  for  the  past  and  security 
for  the  future." 

Accordingly  he  entered  upon  a  eulogy  of  his  native 
State  for  its  patriotism  in  the  Revolution,  which  is  a 


360  American  Debate  [1828- 

classic  of  American  eloquence  too  well  known  to  require 
reproduction  here.  What  is  more  to  our  purpose  is  his 
succeeding  exposition  of  the  " South  Carolina  doctrine," 
as  presented  in  the  protest  of  the  State  legislature 
against  the  tariff  of  1828,  and  his  support  of  it  by  citing 
and  endorsing  the  Kentucky  and  Virginia  Resolutions 
of  1798,  and  Madison's  report  on  the  latter,  a  document 
which  he  said  deserved  to  last  as  long  as  the  Constitu 
tion  itself. 

Senator  Hayne  specially  dwelt  upon  the  "compact 
theory"  of  Jefferson  as  to  the  nature  of  the  Union, 
which  has  already  been  presented  in  these  pages.  The 
substance  of  this  theory  is  that  there  is  no  common 
judge  established  between  the  two  parties  to  the  com 
pact,  the  Federal  Government  and  the  State  govern 
ments,  and  therefore  in  case  of  contest  between  them 
appeal  must  be  made  to  neither,  but  to  the  original 
source  of  the  powers  of  both,  namely,  the  people, 
"peaceably  assembled  by  their  representatives  in 
convention."  In  this  connection  he  quoted  from  the 
protest  against  the  tariff  and  the  Federal  acts  for 
internal  improvements  which  was  prepared  by  Jefferson 
for  the  Virginia  legislature  in  December,  1825,  and  in 
which  it  was  declared  that,  evil  as  would  be  the  dissolu 
tion  of  the  Union,  there  was  one  calamity  yet  greater: 
"submission  to  a  Government  of  unlimited  powers." 

Having  fortified  his  position  by  such  eminent 
authority,  the  Senator  from  South  Carolina,  resorting 
to  the  argumentum  ad  hominem,  adverted  to  a  speech  of 
Mr.  Webster,  made  as  a  Representative  from  New 
Hampshire,  in  which  he  upheld  New  England's  oppo 
sition  to  President  Jefferson's  Embargo  in  threatening 
appeal  to  the  State  governments  for  relief  against  the 
unconstitutional  Federal  act. 


1833]  Nullification  361 

Said  Mr.  Webster  at  that  time:  "This  opposition  is 
constitutional  as  well  as  legal ;  it  is  also  conscientious.  .  .  . 
Men  who  act  from  such  motives  are  not  to  be  ...  awed 
by  any  dangers.  They  know  the  limit  of  constitutional 
opposition ;  up  to  that  limit  .  .  .  they  will  walk  fearlessly." 

Senator  Hayne  sarcastically  commented: 

"How  'the  being  of  the  government'  was  to  be  endan 
gered  by  'constitutional  opposition  to  the  Embargo*  I 
leave  to  the  gentleman  to  explain." 

Hayne  stated  that  it  made  little  difference  in  his 
opinion  whether  Congress  or  the  Supreme  Court  was 
vested  with  the  exclusive  power  of  judging  the  con 
stitutionality  of  the  acts  of  the  Federal  Government, 
since  such  a  power  was  "utterly  subversive  of  the 
sovereignty  and  independence  of  the  States." 

Great  were  the  evils  which  had  been  brought  upon  the 
South  by  unconstitutional  Federal  acts,  but  were  these 
less  oppressive,  still  that  liberty-loving  section  of  the 
country  would  resist  them  as  stoutly,  since  it  contended  for 
a  sacred  principle,  resistance  to  unauthorized  taxation,  and 
against  the  substitution  of  the  discretion  of  Congress  for  the 
limitations  of  the  Constitution.  He  concluded  with  an 
eloquent  peroration  asking  indulgence  if  he  and  his  col 
leagues  had  in  their  ardor  overstepped  "  the  bounds  of  a  cold 
and  calculating  prudence,  "  since,  in  the  language  of  Burke, 
"something  must  be  pardoned  to  the  spirit  of  liberty. " 

Upon  the  conclusion  of  this  speech  the  Southern 
statesmen  and  newspapers  hailed  it  as  unsurpassed  in 
American  oratory,  and  equalled  only  by  the  great 
speeches  of  Burke  and  Chatham  in  the  annals  of  British 
eloquence.  However,  Senator  James  Iredell  of  North 


362  American  Debate 

Carolina  remarked:     "Hayne  has  aroused  the  lion; 
wait  till  we  hear  his  roar  and  feel  his  claws. " 

On  the  evening  before  the  day  set  for  Webster's 
reply  the  hotels  of  Washington  were  filled  with  visitors 
who  had  hurried  to  the  Capitol  to  hear  the  ' '  Lion  of  the 
North"  respond  to  the  "Achilles  of  the  South, "  as  the 
contestants  were  respectively  appellated,  and  early 
next  morning  crowds  poured  into  the  Capitol.  C.  W. 
March,  a  contemporary  journalist  vividly  described  the 
scene: 

"At  twelve  o'clock,  the  hour  of  meeting,  the  Senate 
Chamber  .  .  .  was  filled  to  the  utmost  capacity.  The 
very  stairways  were  dark  with  men  who  hung  on  one  another 
like  bees  in  a  swarm.  The  House  of  Representatives  was 
early  deserted  .  .  .  the  members  all  rushed  in  to  hear  Mr. 
Webster.  .  .  .  The  courtesy  of  Senators  accorded  to  the 
fair  sex  room  on  the  floor — the  most  gallant  of  them  their 
seats.  The  gay  bonnets  and  brilliant  dresses  threw  a  varied 
and  picturesque  beauty  over  the  scene,  softening  and  em 
bellishing  it. " 

Early  in  his  reply  Senator  Webster  courteously 
complimented  his  opponent  upon  his  eloquent  eulogium 
of  his  native  State,  which,  he  said,  met  with  his  own 
hearty  concurrence,  since  he,  too,  was  proud  to  claim 
the  Revolutionary  patriots  of  South  Carolina  as  his 
countrymen — "Americans  all."  Further,  he  called  the 
Senator's  attention  to  the  unity  both  of  principle  and 
feeling  that  existed  between  South  Carolina  and  Mas 
sachusetts  in  the  days  of  colonial  struggle,  and  uttered 
a  fervent  wish  for  the  restoration  of  that  harmony 
which  false  principles,  since  sown,  had  converted  into 
alienation  and  distrust. 

He  then  entered  upon  the  eulogy  of  Massachusetts 


1833]  Nullification  363 

which,  next  to  the  peroration  of  the  entire  speech,  has 
become  the  favorite  selection  from  all  his  orations,  and 
therefore  does  not  require  presentation  here.  In  the 
rhetorical  sense  of  the  term  it  presents  the  finest  example 
of  "ironic  denial"  in  literature,  since,  in  the  guise  of 
disclaiming  encomium  upon  the  State  as  unnecessary 
in  view  of  her  patent  greatness,  he  paid  her  the  highest 
tributes  both  in  general  and  particular.  Indeed,  in 
argument  as  well  as  oratory  Webster  was  prone  to  use 
the  legal  device  of  presenting  evidence  in  fact,  while 
professing  in  form  that  he  was  withholding  it.  In  the 
impression  of  reserved  force  which  this  imparted,  lies, 
perhaps,  the  chief  reason  for  his  acknowledged  su 
premacy  among  the  orators  and  debaters  of  his  day. 

With  consummate  art  Webster  combined  with  his 
encomium  upon  Massachusetts  a  noble  eulogy  of  the 
Union,  of  which  tribute  his  personal  devotion  to  the 
national  ideal,  whatever  should  be  its  fate,  was  the  main 
and  moving  spirit.  The  dignity  and  grace  of  the 
appeal  to  the  patriotism  of  his  auditors  contrasted 
effectively  with  the  impassioned  and  unnecessary 
proclamation  by  Hayne  of  his  loyalty  to  the  country, 
and  prepared  for  a  favorable  reception  of  the  presenta 
tion  and  defense  of  what  he  held  to  be  the  true  prin 
ciples  of  the  Constitution. 

Before  proceeding,  however,  with  exposition,  he 
gave  a  summary  of  what  he  understood  his  opponent  to 
hold  as  the  "South  Carolina  doctrine,"  namely,  that  a 
State  had  not  only  the  conceded  revolutionary  right, 
but  also  the  constitutional  right  to  arrest  the  operation 
of  Federal  laws  which  it  regarded  as  contrary  to  the 
Constitution. 

Senator  Hayne  arose  and  agreed  that  this  was  the 
proper  understanding  of  the  doctrine  by  quoting  with 


364  American  Debate  [1828- 

his  endorsement  the  statement  of  the  "  compact  theory  " 
in  the  words  of  the  Virginia  Resolutions,  which  he 
implied  upheld  this  view. 

Senator  Webster  construed  this  statement  in  different 
fashion,  saying  that  the  right  of  a  State  to  oppose 
the  "deliberate,  palpable,  and  dangerous  exercise"  by 
the  Federal  government  of  "powers  not  granted  by  the 
compact "  (to  use  the  words  of  the  Virginia  Resolutions) 
was  a  conceded  revolutionary  right,  and  this  alone  was 
expressed  by  the  Resolutions.  Senator  Hayne  in 
reply  contented  himself  with  saying  that  he  did  not 
contend  for  the  mere  right  of  revolution,  but  for  the 
right  of  constitutional  resistance,  failing  to  seize  the 
opportunity  of  showing,  as  was  easily  possible  by  other 
passages  of  the  Virginia  Resolutions,  that  this  was  the 
meaning  of  that  exposition  of  State  Rights  doctrine. 

Senator  Webster  resumed  his  argument  on  the  issues 
that  were  now  agreed  upon  between  himself  and  his 
opponent,  namely,  the  constitutional  right  of  a  State 
to  decide  upon  the  constitutionality  of  Federal  legis 
lation,  and  to  resist  it  in  case  of  an  adverse  decision. 
He,  on  his  part,  admitted  the  right  to  make  such  re 
sistance  by  lawful  procedure,  but  not  by  force,  and 
denied  that  decision  by  a  State  as  to  unconstitutionality 
of  Federal  legislation  was  a  constitutional  right.  The 
latter  question,  he  said,  was  the  crucial  issue,  and  to 
this  he  accordingly  addressed  his  argument. 

What,  he  inquired,  was  the  source  of  the  power  of  the 
government?  It  was  the  people,  he  claimed,  not  the  State 
governments:  one  comprehensive  and  common  sovereign 
and  not  four  and  twenty  masters,  any  one  of  whom  could 
repudiate  the  acts  of  its  agents.  Of  the  written  agreement 
between  the  true  master  and  agent  he  said,  in  a  cogent 


1833]  Nullification  365 

sentence  to  which  Lincoln  afterwards  gave  classic  beauty 
in  paraphrasing  it  in  his  Gettysburg  speech:  "It  is,  sir, 
the  people's  Constitution,  the  people's  Government;  made 
for  the  people;  made  by  the  people,  and  answerable  to  the 
people." 

"The  people  of  the  United  States,"  he  said,  "have 
declared  that  this  Constitution  shall  be  the  supreme  law. 
We  must  either  admit  this  proposition  or  dispute  their 
authority."  The  States,  he  conceded,  are  sovereign,  but 
only  so  far  as  their  sovereignty  is  not  affected  by  the 
supreme  law.  The  national  government  and  the  State 
governments  are  both  agents  of  the  people,  coordinate  in 
their  authorization  and  with  different  powers,  those  of  the 
national  government  being  definite  and  restricted,  and 
those  of  the  State  governments  being  general  and  residuary. 
The  sovereign  people  by  creating  the  Federal  government 
definitely  controlled  the  State  governments.  He  therefore 
denied  that  the  claim  of  his  opponents  that  "State  sover 
eignty"  is  to  be  "controlled  only  by  its  own  feeling  of 
justice,"  that  is,  not  to  be  controlled  at  all  in  the  legal 
sense. 

Here  the  Senator  enumerated  various  prohibitions 
of  the  power  of  the  States  which  were  specifically  stated 
in  the  Constitution,  namely,  in  regard  to  making  war 
and  treaties,  and  coining  money. 

The  power  to  impose  a  tariff  was  reserved  to  the  Federal 
Government,  and  clearly  authorized.  The  objection  of 
South  Carolina  and  Georgia  to  the  Tariff  of  1828  as  uncon 
stitutional  because  designed  to  promote  one  industry  at  the 
expense  of  another,  if  it  were  admitted,  equally  prevailed 
against  other  tariff  acts,  notably  that  of  1816,  which  was 
established  to  promote  the  interest  of  manufacturers  of 
American  cotton  to  the  admitted  injury  of  the  Calcutta 
cotton  trade. 


366  American  Debate  [1828- 

This  was  a  telling  reference,  since  the  leader  of  the 
Southern  opposition  to  the  Tariff  of  1828,  John  C. 
Calhoun,  who  sat  in  enforced  silence  in  the  seat  of  the 
Senate's  presiding  officer,  had,  as  chairman  of  the 
Ways  and  Means  Committee  of  the  House,  introduced 
the  Tariff  Bill  of  1816.  Senator  Webster  continued: 

At  the  very  moment  when  South  Carolina  is  declaring 
the  Tariff  of  1828  unconstitutional,  Pennsylvania  and 
Kentucky  resolve  exactly  the  reverse.  If  duties  are  to  be 
paid  in  the  latter  States  and  not  in  the  former  State,  how 
will  the  application  of  the  principle  of  the  gentleman  relieve 
us?  His  construction  gets  us  into  the  difficulty;  how  does 
he  propose  to  get  us  out  ?  For  we  live  under  a  government 
of  uniform  laws,  and  under  a  Constitution,  too,  which 
contains  an  express  provision  that  all  duties  shall  be  equal 
in  all  the  States. 

Accordingly  he  asked:  "If  there  be  no  power  to  settle 
such  questions  independently  of  the  States,  is  not  the  whole 
Union  a  rope  of  sand?  Are  we  not  thrown  back  again 
precisely  on  the  old  Confederation?" 

After  quoting  from  a  number  of  Southern  utterances 
advising  open  resistance  to  the  laws  of  the  Union, 
Senator  Webster  proceeded  to  refute  the  charge  that 
New  England  had  ever  taken  the  same  attitude. 

He  admitted  that  that  section  of  the  country  had  bitterly 
opposed  Jefferson's  Embargo,  but  declared  that  the  records 
of  the  New  England  State  legislatures  proved  that  no 
suggestions  of  forcible  resistance  to  the  measure  had  met 
with  favor.  No  public  man  of  reputation  had  ever  advanced 
the  "South  Carolina  doctrine"  in  Massachusetts  even  in 
the  warmest  times,  or  could  maintain  himself  upon  it 
there  at  any  time.  As  for  himself  he  repudiated  the  whole 
of  it:  "it  has  not  a  foot  of  ground  in  the  Constitution  to 


18331  Nullification  367 

stand  on. "  On  the  contrary  the  very  chief  end,  the  main 
design,  for  which  the  whole  Constitution  was  framed  and 
adopted  was  to  establish  a  government  which  should  not 
be  obliged  to  sit  through  State  agency,  or  depend  on  State 
opinion  and  State  discretion.  The  people  had  had  quite 
enough  of  that  kind  of  government  under  the  Confedera 
tion.  Hence  they  declared  that  "the  Constitution  and  the 
laws  of  the  United  States  made  in  pursuance  thereof  shall 
be  the  supreme  law  of  the  land,  anything  in  the  constitution 
or  laws  of  any  State  to  the  contrary  notwithstanding. " 

Who  shall  decide  the  question  of  interference  of  State 
laws  with  Federal?  To  whom  lies  the  last  appeal?  The 
Constitution  declares  that  "the  judicial  power  shall  extend 
to  all  cases  arising  under  the  Constitution  and  laws  of  the 
United  States, "  and  Congress  at  its  first  session  established 
the  mode  of  bringing  all  questions  of  constitutional  power 
to  the  final  decision  of  the  Supreme  Court.  How  reasonable 
was  this  plan!  How  preposterous  would  it  have  been  to 
make  a  government  for  the  whole  Union,  and  yet  leave  its 
powers  subject  not  to  one  interpretation,  but  to  thirteen  or 
twenty-four  interpretations!  Instead  of  one  tribunal, 
established  by  all,  responsible  to  all,  with  power  to  decide 
for  all,  shall  constitutional  questions  be  left  to  four  and 
twenty  popular  bodies,  each  at  liberty  to  decide  for  itself 
and  none  bound  to  respect  the  decisions  of  others ;  and  each 
at  liberty,  too,  to  give  a  new  construction  on  every  new 
election  of  its  own  members  ? 

The  Senator  then  asked  how  State  interference  with 
Federal  acts  could  practically  be  applied  without 
bloodshed  and  rebellion.  Taking  resistance  to  the 
tariff  act  as  an  example,  he  imagined  the  procedure 
in  South  Carolina,  and  with  graphic  humor  of  the  mock- 
heroic  order  frequent  in  early  American  oratory,  he 
represented  his  honorable  opponent,  who,  fortunately 
for  the  speaker's  purpose,  commanded  the  militia  of 


368  American  Debate 

the  State,  as  leading  his  troops,  under  the  nullifying 
act  as  a  standard,  against  the  Charleston  custom  house, 
to  be  met  there  by  the  Federal  officer  in  charge  with  the 
discomposing  question :  how,  as  a  lawyer,  the  Senator 
could  construe  his  act  by  Blackstone  and  other  authori 
ties  as  anything  else  than  treason;  and  he  asked  how 
the  officer,  in  case  of  compliance  with  the  demands  of 
the  State,  was  to  be  protected  along  with  the  Senator 
and  his  associates  from  the  capital  punishment  for 
this  offense. 

Can  the  courts  of  the  United  States  take  notice  of  the 
indulgence  of  a  State  to  commit  treason?  The  common 
saying  that  a  State  cannot  commit  treason  herself  is  nothing 
to  the  purpose.  Can  she  authorize  others  to  do  it?  The 
gentleman  could  see,  or  think  that  he  saw,  how  the  judg 
ment  by  Congress  or  the  Supreme  Court  of  the  Federal 
government's  powers  subverted  State  sovereignty,  but 
could  not  perceive  that  judgment  by  the  State  subverted 
the  government.  Perhaps  he  was  right  in  his  view  of  what 
the  nature  of  the  Union  ought  to  be,  but  was  this  true  of 
what  it  actually  was?  If  the  fact  was  not  to  his  liking,  let 
him  and  his  associates  peaceably  proceed  to  persuade  the 
people  to  adopt  the  prescribed  constitutional  method  for 
changing  the  nature  of  the  Union.  Effective  persuasion  to 
this  end  he  admitted  would  be  difficult,  since  the  people 
has  willingly  chosen  to  trust  themselves  to  four  guaranties : 
(i)  the  plain  words  of  the  Constitution,  and  the  construction 
put  by  responsible  Federal  legislators,  and  administrators, 
under  their  oaths  of  office,  on  their  respective  powers;  (2) 
frequent  elections  permitting  the  retirement  of  unworthy 
officers;  (3)  the  Federal  judiciary,  made  as  respectable, 
disinterested,  and  independent  as  practicable;  and  (4)  the 
power  to  amend  the  Constitution.  Further  the  people  of 
the  United  States  had  never  authorized  any  State  legis 
lature  to  interpret  the  Constitution,  or  to  arrest  its  oper- 


1833]  Nullification  369 

ation.  The  South  Carolina  doctrine  would  enfeeble  the 
Constitution  to  exist  as  a  poor  dependent  on  State  per 
mission. 

There  was,  in  his  opinion,  no  fear  of  such  a  subversion. 
The  people,  viewing  the  blessings  which  Union  under  the 
Constitution  had  brought  them,  the  restoration  of  the 
disordered  finance,  prostrate  commerce,  and  ruined  credit 
of  the  country  which  had  prevailed  under  the  Confederation, 
arid  the  ample  protection  of  widening  territory  and  increas 
ing  population,  were  attached  to  it  by  bonds  of  reverence 
and  gratitude  which  time  was  ever  strengthening.  With 
the  future  of  the  country  under  the  Union  so  bright  in 
prospect,  he  did  not  dare  even  to  consider  what  it  would  be 
if  the  principles  of  his  opponent  should  in  time  prevail,  and 
the  Union  be  destroyed.  God  grant  that  he  should  never 
see  that  day ! 

The  Senator  then  ended  his  speech  with  an  amplifica 
tion  of  this  prayer,  which,  in  the  classic  perfection  of 
its  rhetoric  and  the  sublimity  of  its  appeal  to  the 
patriotism  not  only  of  the  day,  but  of  all  time,  remains 
the  finest  peroration  of  all  orators  ancient  or  modern.1 

"When  my  eyes  shall  be  turned  to  behold,  for  the  last 
time,  the  sun  in  heaven,  may  I  not  see  him  shining  on  the 
broken  and  dishonored  fragments  of  a  once  glorious  Union ; 
on  States  dissevered,  discordant,  belligerent;  on  a  land  rent 
with  civil  feuds,  or  drenched,  it  may  be,  in  fraternal  blood ! 
Let  their  last  feeble  and  lingering  glance,  rather,  behold 
the  gorgeous  ensign  of  the  Republic,  now  known  and 

1  Webster  did  not  deliver  the  passage  precisely  in  its  present  form. 
Recognizing  that  it  was  destined  to  stand  as  his  highest  achievement  as 
an  orator,  he  withheld  for  a  long  time  its  publication  in  the  record  of 
Congress,  and  carefully  revised  its  rhetoric  so  that  in  rhythm  and  vocal 
quality  as  well  as  in  the  artistry  of  vocabulary  and  figure  it  should  be  as 
perfect  a  specimen  of  oratorical  literature  as  he  could  make  it. 
24 


370  American  Debate 

honored  throughout  the  earth,  still  full  high  advanced,  its 
arms  and  trophies  streaming  in  their  original  luster,  not  a 
stripe  erased  or  polluted,  nor  a  single  star  obscured,  bearing 
for  its  motto  no  such  miserable  interrogatory  as,  What  is 
all  this  worth?  nor  those  other  words  of  delusion  and 
folly;  Liberty  first  and  Union  afterward;  but  everywhere, 
spread  all  over  in  characters  of  living  light,  blazing  on  all 
its  ample  folds,  as  they  float  over  the  sea  and  over  the  land, 
and  in  every  wind  under  the  whole  heavens,  that  other 
sentiment,  dear  to  every  true  American  heart — Liberty  and 
Union,  now  and  forever,  one  and  inseparable!" 

As  the  Senator  closed,  the  audience  was  profoundly 
thrilled,  and  the  National  Republicans  passed  out  of 
the  Capitol  to  walk  the  streets  of  Washington  with  high 
heads,  facing  down  the  subdued  Democrats  with  a 
partisan  pride  that  in  its  identification  with  national 
patriotism  imparted  an  exaltation  of  spirit  which,  ac 
cording  to  the  testimony  of  many,  formed  the  greatest 
psychical  experience  of  their  lives. 

Senator  Hayne  now  fully  realized  the  disadvantages 
under  which  he  had  placed  himself  by  injecting  into  a 
practical  discussion  of  purely  administrative  method  a 
question  of  idealistic  principle,  thereby  permitting 
his  opponent  to  break  the  same  law  of  parliamentary 
appositeness  to  a  far  greater  extent  without  fear  of 
criticism.  Like  Don  Quixote,  Hayne  had  seized  an 
inappropriate  occasion  to  proclaim  his  devotion  to  his 
mistress,  the  Dulcinea  del  Toboso  of  State  Rights,  to 
challenge  denial  that  she  was  the  supreme  lady  of  the 
land,  and  to  charge  with  treason  and  threaten  with 
condign  punishment  the  wight  who  should  be  so  bold 
as  to  prefer  another,  and  he  had  thereby  made  it 
opportune  for  a  champion  to  come  forward  in  behalf  of 
a  mistress  whose  rank  and  attributes  upon  their  mere 


Nullification  371 

statement  appeared  to  the  impartial  auditor  as  far 
transcending  those  of  his  own  claimant.  The  majestic 
figure  of  Columbia,  the  emblem  of  the  Union,  sprang 
at  once  into  the  mind  of  his  hearers  when  Webster 
proclaimed  the  sovereignty  of  the  Federal  Government 
in  all  national  aspects.  Imagination  instantly  fixed 
a  conception  which  reason  could  not  without  great  and 
prolonged  effort  remove. 

In  further  likeness  to  the  infatuated  Knight  of  La 
Mancha,  the  chivalric  Senator  from  South  Carolina  had 
rushed  to  the  attack  equipped  with  an  ancient  blade, 
which,  though  it  had  been  potent  in  the  hands  of  the 
mighty  warriors  who  forged  it  from  the  metal  of  the 
Constitution,  was  unavailing  in  his  weaker  grasp  to 
pierce  the  parries  and  oppose  the  counter  thrusts  of  a 
master  of  fence  whose  sword  was  wrought  of  weightier 
steel  from  the  same  source,  and  was  newly  tempered  in 
the  expanding  spirit  of  the  time  to  a  degree  of  elasticity 
far  beyond  that  of  his  own  weapon.  Indeed,  Hayne 
had  invited  defeat  'by  basing  his  argument  almost 
entirely  upon  the  Kentucky  and  Virginia  Resolutions, 
which  one  of  their  master  spirits,  James  Madison,  had 
subsequently  refused  to  apply  to  the  concrete  and 
extreme  case  of  forcible  nullification  of  the  Federal 
tariff  by  South  Carolina.  Indeed,  in  his  previous 
speech  Hayne  had  quoted  without  condemnation  the 
statement  of  the  other  master  spirit,  Thomas  Jefferson, 
that  appeal  on  disputed  questions  between  the  Federal 
Government  and  a  State  was  to  neither  party,  but  "to 
their  employers,  peaceably  assembled  by  their  repre 
sentatives  in  convention. " 

Above  all,  by  his  own  graceful,  lark-like  flights  from 
the  solid  ground  of  argument  into  the  airy  regions  of 
oratory,  Hayne  had  given  license  to  his  opponent  to 


372  American  Debate 

soar  majestically  far  above  him  into  an  empyrean 
which  was  native  to  his  eagle  spirit. 

He  now  returned  to  plain  argument,  cautiously 
defensive  in  character  and  based  on  premises  which 
were  more  original  and  less  equivocal  than  those  of  his 
former  speeches.  The  proposition  that  South  Carolina 
should  appeal  to  her  sister  States  to  join  with  her  in 
amending  the  Constitution  he  refused  on  the  ground 
that  such  a  course  would  admit  the  exercise  of  an 
authority  already  unconstitutional,  and  that  it  was 
absurd  to  suppose  that  redress  could  ever  be  obtained 
by  such  an  appeal. 

In  support  of  his  first  objection  he  quoted  a  passage  from 
President  Adams's  late  message  in  which  he  stated  that 
"we  are  chiefly  indebted  for  the  success  of  the  Constitution 
...  to  the  watchful  and  auxiliary  operation  of  the  State 
authorities,"  and  warned  Congress  "against  all  encroach 
ments  upon  the  legitimate  sphere  of  State  sovereignty. " 

That  such  a  determination  of  the  nature  of  the  Union 
would  make  it  "a  rope  of  sand"  he  emphatically  denied. 
It  would  simply  keep  the  Federal  government  within  its 
proper  constitutional  limits,  and  preserve  the  Union  from 
ultimate  destruction  by  continuing  the  "checks  and 
balances"  devised  by  the  wise  fathers  of  the  Federal  system 
to  prevent  that  overaction  which  is  the  besetting  sin  of  all 
governments  and  the  foe  of  freedom  the  world  over. 

Nullification  by  a  State  of  unconstitutional  Federal  acts 
he  declared  was  the  safest  of  all  checks,  and  least  liable  to 
abuse.  The  Supreme  Court  did  not  afford  an  equal  safe 
guard.  Three  of  the  seven  constituting  the  court  formed  a 
majority  of  its  quorum  of  four,  and,  since  all  were  without 
direct  responsibility  in  matters  of  opinion,  this  triumvirate 
might  certainly  be  influenced  by  inequitable  motives  such 
as  were  supposed  would  exist  in  the  case  of  a  State  legis 
lature  deciding  upon  the  constitutionality  of  a  Federal  act. 


1833]  Nullification  373 

Surely  a  power  which  the  gentleman  is  willing  to  confide 
to  three  judges  might  safely  be  intrusted  to  a  sovereign 
State!  In  his  opinion  the  State  would  not  rashly  exercise 
this  trust  in  view  of  the  powerful  patriotic  motives  restrain 
ing  it  from  taking  the  high  ground  of  interposing  her 
sovereign  power  to  protect  her  citizens.  Indeed,  he  feared 
that  the  State  would  fail  to  exert  this  power  even  on  proper 
occasions,  so  great  was  the  devotion  of  the  people  to  the 
Union,  and  so  solicitous  were  they  of  the  friendship  and 
good  opinion  of  the  citizens  of  the  other  States.  Up  to  the 
present  the  State  Rights  advocates  had  not  put  their  doc 
trine  into  practice.  Their  protest  alone  in  the  case  of  the 
Alien  and  Sedition  laws  had  secured  the  repeal  of  these 
despotic  acts.  President  Jefferson  said  he  had  yielded  up 
the  Embargo  rather  than  force  New  England  into  open  op 
position  to  it,  and  he  (Hayne)  approved  of  the  concession 
in  view  of  the  honest  convictions  of  the  unconstitutionality 
of  the  Embargo  which  were  held  by  so  large  a  portion  of  our 
fellow  citizens.  Were  such  results  not  desirable  ? 

It  was  a  disputed  point  whether  Congress  had  the  right 
to  repass  an  act  which  the  Supreme  Court  had  nullified  by 
declaring  it  unconstitutional.  In  case  of  such  legislation 
the  remedy  would  be  an  appeal  by  Congress,  the  party 
proposing  to  exercise  the  disputed  power,  to  its  creator,  the 
States,  to  amend  the  Constitution.  Why  then  should  a 
sovereign  and  independent  State  be  bound  to  submit  to  the 
operation  of  a  Federal  act  which  grossly  violates  her  rights 
and  which  she  believes  to  be  unconstitutional?  On  the 
contrary,  he  believed  the  Federal  Government  was  bound 
to  acquiesce  in  a  solemn  decision  of  a  State  in  the  case  of  a 
Federal  act,  at  least  so  far  as  to  make  an  appeal  to  the  pe  pie 
for  an  amendment  to  the  Constitution  [a  concession  which 
the  Senator  had  in  the  beginning  of  his  speech  refused  to 
consider],  and  not  to  resort  to  coercion  against  the  citizens 
of  the  State  if  this  decision  should  be  adverse.  Such  a 
repudiated  law  could  be  enforced  only  by  unconstitutional 


374  American  Debate 

means,  such  as  the  coercion  of  juries  at  the  point  of  the 
bayonet  to  find  verdicts  against  citizens  who  had  defended 
what  they  had  reason  to  believe  were  their  constitutional 
rights. 

In  answer  to  Webster's  question  as  to  how  he  would 
reply  to  the  officer  of  the  Charleston  custom  house 
demanding  legal  authority  for  the  resistance  of  himself 
and  his  followers  to  an  act  of  government,  he  said  that 
they  would  not  read  out  of  musty  law  books  to  justify 
their  enterprise,  but  would  look  to  the  Constitution, 
and  claim  as  warrant  the  sovereignty  of  their  State 
therein  reserved. 

In  turn  he  put  a  personal  question  to  Webster:  Could 
there  be  any  Federal  violation  of  the  constitutional  rights  of 
the  States  and  of  the  liberties  of  the  citizen  (such  as  trial 
by  jury,  and  freedom  of  religion  and  the  press)  which  he 
believed  it  the  right  and  duty  of  a  State  to  resist?  This 
interrogation  he  made  rhetorical  by  answering  it  himself. 
Of  course  not;  but  Webster  would  call  such  resistance  a 
revolutionary  act,  while  he  (Hayne)  contended  that  it  was 
a  constitutional  right.  In  order  to  present  a  favorable 
contrast  between  the  "force"  to  which  his  opponent  would 
resort,  and  the  peaceful  measure  which  he  would  employ, 
again  he  abandoned  his  initial  repudiation  of  remedy  by 
constitutional  amendment,  and  supported  this  procedure, 
citing  for  the  second  time  the  recommendation  of  Jefferson 
to  hold  a  popular  convention  that  should  call  for  a  change 
in  the  nation's  charter  to  decide  definitely  where  authority 
should  lie. 

Having  refuted  himself  on  this,  the  crucial  point  of 
the  discussion  more  effectually  than  any  opponent 
could  have  done,  he  closed  his  speech  and  the  debate 
by  a  graceful  but  unimpressive  rhetorical  figure  parallel- 


1833]  Nullification  375 

ing  in  form  but  opposing  in  thought  the  peroration  of 
Webster. 

"The  gentleman  is  for  marching  under  a  banner  studded 
all  over  with  stars,  and  bearing  the  inscription  Liberty  and 
Union.  I  had  thought,  sir,  the  gentleman  would  have 
borne  a  standard  displaying  in  its  ample  folds  a  brilliant  sun, 
extending  its  golden  rays  from  the  center  to  the  extremities, 
in  the  brightness  of  whose  beams  the  '  little  stars  hide  their 
diminished  heads.'  Ours,  sir,  is  the  banner  of  the  Constitu 
tion  ;  the  twenty-four  stars  are  there  in  all  their  undimin- 
ished  luster ;  on  it  is  inscribed,  Liberty — the  Constitution — 
Union.  We  offer  up  our  fervent  prayer  to  the  Father  of  all 
Mercies  that  it  may  continue  to  wave,  for  ages  yet  to  come, 
over  a  free,  a  happy,  and  a  united  people. " 

The  weakness  of  Hayne's  Mercurial  effort  to  rival 
the  Apollonian  accents  of  the  orator  who  was  endowed 
thereafter  by  his  followers  with  the  grandiose  title  of 
"The  Expounder  and  Defender  of  the  Constitution," 
was  recognized  by  his  most  ardent  followers,  and  they 
bitterly  regretted  that  they  had  not  had  as  champion 
of  their  cause  the  man  in  the  presiding  chair,  whose 
adherence  to  unrhetorical  argument  would  not  have 
permitted  such  an  unfavorable  comparison.  Thereafter 
they  looked  to  Calhoun  as  their  leader. 

Hayne  made  a  still  graver  mistake  by  condoning 
the  one  pervading  element  of  falsity  in  his  opponent's 
rhetoric,  namely  the  unfitness  of  his  thought  and  its 
expression  as  related  to  himself  (i.e.  his  own  record),  to 
the  subject,  and  to  the  occasion.  It  remained  for 
Thomas  H.  Benton, *  Senator  from  Missouri,  a  week 
later  (on  February  2,  1830),  to  point  out  the  essential 
flaw  in  Webster's  effort,  particularly  the  peroration. 

1  For  a  sketch  of  Benton  see  Volume  II.,  Chapter  II. 


376  American  Debate  1*828- 

As  an  example  of  rhetorical  criticism  which  is  itself  a 
rhetorical  masterpiece,  it  is  here  reproduced  for  the 
benefit  of  readers  who  desire  to  attain  discrimination 
in  estimating  the  character  of  statesmen  and  the  argu 
mentative  and  oratorical  quality  of  their  utterances. 
Commenting  on  Webster's  peroration  as  ''one  of  the 
novelties  of  the  debate,"  Senator  Benton  spoke  of  its 
"elaboration  of  argument  and  ornament  upon  the  love 
and  blessings  of  Union — the  hatred  and  horror  of  dis 
union  " — as  a  rhetorical  device  "  which  brought  into  full 
play  the  favorite  Ciceronian  figure  of  amplification," 
but  violative  of  a  higher  rule — that  of  propriety. 

"It  came  to  us  when  we  were  not  prepared  for  it;  when 
there  was  nothing  in  the  Senate,  nor  in  the  country,  to 
grace  its  introduction.  ...  It  may  be  it  was  the  prophetic 
cry  of  the  distracted  daughter  of  Priam  breaking  into  the 
council  and  alarming  its  tranquil  members  with  vaticina 
tions  of  the  fall  of  Troy;  but  to  me  it  sounded  like  the 
sudden  proclamation  of  an  earthquake,  when  the  sun,  the 
earth,  the  air  announced  no  such  prodigy;  when  all  the  ele 
ments  of  nature  were  at  rest,  and  sweet  repose  pervaded 
the  world. " 

A  fitting  time,  for  such  a  discourse,  he  said,  was  on  the 
occasion  of  the  Hartford  Convention. 

"If  it  had  been  delivered  then,  either  in  the  hall  of  the 
House  of  Representatives,  or  in  the  den  of  the  Convention 
.  .  .  what  effects  must  it  not  have  produced!  What 
terror  and  consternation  among  the  plotters  of  disunion  !" 

Threats  of  Secession.  In  1832,  when  a  new  and  even 
more  protective  tariff  than  the  "abominations"  one 
of  1828  was  enacted  in  violation  of  the  promise  of 
reduction  made  by  Henry  Clay,  the  father  of  the  bill, 


1833]  Nullification  377 

threats  of  secession  arose  again  in  South  Carolina  and 
Georgia.  In  the  debate  on  the  bill,  Clay,  referring  to 
the  proposition  of  the  South  Carolina  legislature  to 
resort  to  counteracting  measures,  declared  that,  as  the 
bill  was  for  the  good  of  the  whole  of  the  Union,  any  part 
of  it  must  submit — the  majority  must  rule. 

"The  majority  ought  to  govern  wisely,  equitably,  moder 
ately,  and  constitutionally,  but  govern  it  must,  subject  only 
to  the  terrible  appeal  of  revolution. "  If  a  minority  succeed 
by  threats  in  forcing  an  abandonment  of  what  is  for  the 
general  welfare,  then  "the  Union,  from  that  moment,  is 
practically  gone.  It  may  linger  on  in  form  and  name,  but 
its  vital  spirit  has  fled  forever!" 

He  appealed  to  the  patriotism  of  South  Carolina  that  it 
"pause  and  contemplate  the  frightful  precipice  before 
them,"  since  "to  advance  is  to  rush  on  certain  and  in 
evitable  disgrace  and  destruction. " 

In  reply  to  this,  Augustine  Smith  Clayton  [Ga.],1  on 
a  later  occasion,  voiced  the  determination  of  his  State 
to  secede  from  the  Union  if  the  act  was  put  into  forcible 
operation. 

"The  South  is  attached,  warmly  attached  to  the  Union; 
not,  it  is  true,  for  its  money,  for  we  pay  all  and  get  nothing2; 
but  for  those  free  and  liberal  principles  so  dear  to  the 

1  Mr.  Clayton  was  a  distinguished  jurist  who  had  upheld  the  su 
premacy  of  the  State  over  the  Federal  government  in  the  matter  of 
jurisdiction  over  the  Cherokee  Indians  within  the  limits  of  Georgia, 
but  was  overruled  by  the  Supreme  Court.  He  served  in  Congress  from 
1831  to  1835. 

*  The  South  then  had  no  manufactures,  but  imported  all  its  supplies 
except  main  articles  of  food,  largely  from  abroad  in  exchange  for  its 
cotton  and  from  the  North  in  exchange  for  this  and  other  products. 
Hence  it  paid  more  for  commodities  under  the  tariff  and  received  no 
benefits  from  it. 


378  American  Debate  [1828- 

rights  of  man;  those  principles  that  form  the  best  security 
for  his  life,  liberty,  and  property,  without  which  neither 
union  nor  anything  else  is  worth  preserving.  In  the  words 
of  a  great  man,1  give  us  union,  but  give  us  liberty  first. 
Do  not  deprive  us  of  all  our  blessings  under  the  empty 
sound  of  union.  Do  not  steal  from  us  our  senses  under  the 
bewitching  charm  of  union.  Do  not,  like  the  Madagascar 
bat,  suck  us  to  death  while  you  are  fanning  us  to  sleep  by 
the  cooling  breezes  of  your  widespread  wings  of  union.  We 
begin  to  understand  all  this  delusion,  and  we  are  awake  to 
the  sufferings  you  have  insidiously  inflicted  upon  us  by  the 
talisman  of  union.  If  you  will  not  withdraw  your  exactions, 
if  you  will  not  live  with  us  upon  the  terms  of  equal  rights, 
I  tell  you  in  the  language  of  plain  truth,  to  which,  perhaps, 
you  are  unaccustomed,  we  shall  certainly  part  from  you — 
I  hope,  in  peace." 

In  the  ensuing  Presidential  election,  South  Carolina, 
in  protest  against  the  leading  candidates,  Jackson 
(the  incumbent)  and  Clay,  both  of  whom  had  declared 
against  Nullification,  voted  for  Governor  John  Floyd  of 
Virginia,  a  pronounced  Nullificationist. 

Ordinance  of  Nullification.  On  November  24,  1832 
(two  weeks  after  the  election),  the  people  of  South 
Carolina,  in  convention  assembled,  passed  an  Ordinance 
of  Nullification  against  the  tariff. 

This  asserted  that  the  recent  tariff  act  was  unconstitu 
tional,  in  that  it  discriminated  in  favor  of  class  and  sectional 
interests  and  "collected  unnecessary  revenue  for  objects 
[protection]  unauthorized  in  the  Constitution,"  and  there 
fore  that  the  act  was  "null  and  void "  in  the  State,  and  to  be 
resisted,  if  necessary,  by  force;  and  that,  if  the  Federal 
government  employed  force  to  execute  it,  the  State  would 
organize  itself  as  a  separate  and  sovereign  government. 

1  Patrick  Henry  in  the  Virginia  Convention  of  1788. 


1833]  Nullification  379 

President  Jackson1  was  reflected,  and  in  his  Annual 
Message  of  December  4,  1832,  after  stating  that  the 
public  debt  would  shortly  be  extinguished,  and  there 
fore  proposing  a  reduction  of  the  tariff — a  conciliatory 
proposal  to  the  South — he  nevertheless  firmly  stated 
that  the  Federal  laws  in  any  event  would  be  executed — 
by  force  if  necessary. 

On  December  10  he  issued  a  proclamation  against 
Nullification,  written  by  Edward  Livingston,  Secretary 
of  State.  After  reciting  the  ordinance  of  South  Carolina, 
he  said: 

"The  ordinance  is  founded,  not  on  the  indefeasible  right 
of  resisting  acts  which  are  plainly  unconstitutional  and  too 
oppressive  to  be  endured,  but  on  the  strange  position  that 
any  one  State  may  not  only  declare  an  act  void,  but  pro 
hibit  its  execution ;  that  it  may  do  this  consistently  with  the 
Constitution;  that  the  true  construction  of  that  instrument 
permits  a  State  to  retain  its  place  in  the  Union,  and  yet  be 
bound  by  no  other  of  its  laws  than  those  it  may  choose  to 
consider  as  constitutional.  .  .  .  [This]  is  to  give  the  power 
of  resisting  all  laws.  For  as,  by  the  theory,  there  is  no 
appeal,  the  reasons  alleged  by  the  State,  good  or  bad,  must 
prevail.  .  .  . 

"[Now]  there  are  two  [appointed]  appeals  from  an  un 
constitutional  act  passed  by  Congress — one  to  the  judiciary, 
the  other  to  the  people  and  the  States. " 

The  proclamation  then  discussed  the  ''compact" 
theory  upon  which  nullification  was  justified  by  its 
adherents.  It  claimed  that  the  people  as  a  whole  were 
represented  in  the  Federal  government  organized  under 
the  Constitution,  exemplifying  this  in  the  choice  of  the 

1  The  sketch  of  Jackson  is  deferred  to  a  later  volume. 


380  American  Debate  [1828- 

President  and  the  Vice-President,  the  electors  of  whom 
are  chosen  by  popular  vote. 

"The  electors  of  a  majority  of  States  may  have  given 
their  votes  for  one  candidate,  and  yet  another  may  be 
chosen.  The  people,  then,  and  not  the  States  are  repre 
sented  in  the  executive  branch. " 

The  proclamation  similarly  showed  that  the  House 
of  Representatives  was  a  popular  legislature. 

"The  Constitution,  then,  forms  a  government,  not  a 
league;  and,  whether  it  be  formed  by  compact  between  the 
States,  or  in  any  other  manner,  its  character  is  the  same.  .  .  . 
Each  State,  having  expressly  parted  with  so  many  powers 
as  to  constitute,  jointly  with  the  other  States,  a  single 
nation,  cannot,  from  that  period,  possess  any  right  to  secede, 
because  such  secession  does  not  break  a  league,  but  destroys 
the  unity  of  a  nation. " 

The  President  besought  the  people  of  South  Carolina, 
by  the  memory  of  their  Revolutionary  fathers,  who  had 
fought  not  only  for  the  State  but  for  the  Republic,  to 
retrace  their  steps,  that  they  should  not  be  "stig 
matized  when  dead,  and  dishonored  and  scorned"  when 
alive,  "as  the  authors  of  the  first  attack  on  the  Consti 
tution"  of  their  country. 

To  the  citizens  of  the  entire  Union  he  appealed  for 
undivided  support  in  his  determination  to  execute  the 
laws  of  the  United  States,  by  moderate  means  if  possi 
ble,  but  by  drastic  ones  if  necessary. 

Despite  the  President's  proclamation,  South  Carolina 
proceeded,  in  the  same  month,  to  elect  Senator  Hayne 
Governor,  with  the  declared  purpose  to  organize  the 
State  as  a  government  independent  of  Federal  control. 
In  obedience  to  his  first  message  it  "resumed  the 
sovereign  powers  which  the  State  had  resigned  to  the 


Nullification  381 

Federal  government  under  the  Constitution.'*  Gover 
nor  Hayne  put  the  State  in  readiness  for  war.  However, 
the  State  still  retained  its  Senators  and  Representatives 
at  Washington. 

In  reply  to  the  action  of  the  Governor,  President 
Jackson,  early  in  January,  1833,  sent  a  special  message 
to  Congress,  asking  it  to  take  such  measures  as  would 
vindicate  the  just  power  of  the  Constitution,  preserve 
the  integrity  of  the  Union,  and  execute  the  laws. 

The  "  Force  Bill."  In  accordance  with  this  recom 
mendation  the  Judiciary  Committee  of  the  Senate 
reported  a  bill  to  employ  the  land  and  naval  forces  of 
the  United  States,  if  necessary,  to  put  down  resistance 
to  the  collection  of  customs  duties.  This  was  denounced 
by  Southern  Senators  as  a  "  Force  Bill. " ' 

The  issue  of  the  constitutional  nature  of  the  Union 
was  presented  in  opposing  sets  of  resolutions  offered  by 
John  C.  Calhoun  [S.  C.]  and  Felix  Grundy  [Tenn.]. 

Sketch  of  Grundy.  Grundy,  a  native  of  Virginia, 
was  taken  in  infancy  by  his  parents  westward,  finally 
reaching  Kentucky.  Three  of  his  brothers  were  killed 
by  the  Indians.  He  received  his  early  education  from 
his  mother,  a  woman  of  forceful  character,  and  his 
later,  at  a  Kentucky  academy.  He  studied  law  under 
George  Nicholas,  whose  Republican  principles  he 
imbibed.  He  was  a  member  of  the  State  constitutional 
convention  of  1799,  and  of  the  legislature  from  that 
year  to  1806.  In  the  latter  body  he  crossed  swords 
with  Henry  Clay  in  a  debate  on  banking,  which  fore 
shadowed  their  future  divergence  in  political  faith. 
In  1807  he  became  Chief -Just  ice  of  the  State,  but,  the 
salary  being  too  small  to  live  upon  comfortably,  he 

1  For  an  extended  account  of  the  debate  see  Great  Debates  in  American 
History,  vol.  v.,  p.  92. 


382  American  Debate 

resigned,  and  removed  to  Nashville,  Tenn.  Here  he 
achieved  a  great  reputation  as  a  criminal  lawyer.  As 
we  have  seen,  he  was  elected  to  Congress  in  1811  as  a 
war  Republican.  He  resigned  in  1814  on  account  of  the 
illness  of  his  wife.  In  1819  he  was  elected  to  the 
Tennessee  legislature,  where  he  opposed  meretricious 
laws  for  the  relief  of  the  financial  depression  which  was 
occasioned  by  the  Second  War  with  Great  Britain,  and 
succeeded  in  establishing  a  State  bank  to  solve  the 
difficulties.  In  1830  he  was  elected  to  the  Senate  and 
placed  on  the  Judiciary  Committee.  He  made  a 
speech  on  the  Foot  resolution  which  inclined  toward 
Nullification,  but  on  this  issue  in  1832-33  he  supported 
his  friend  and  party  leader,  President  Jackson.  In 
1839  he  was  appointed  by  President  Van  Buren  Attor 
ney-General  but  resigned  the  next  year  to  reenter  the 
Senate.  He  supported  a  tariff  for  revenue  with  inciden 
tal  protection,  and  followed  his  theory  of  representative 
government  by  obeying  the  will  of  his  constituents  and 
voting  against  the  Sub-Treasury  bill,  though  personally 
he  was  in  favor  of  it.  He  died  in  1840.  Says  Appletorfs 
Cyclopaedia  of  American  Biography: 

"He  was  a  man  of  commanding  presence,  gentle  and 
amiable.  The  legal  literature  of  the  southwest  is  rilled 
with  anecdotes  about  him.  His  last  political  act  was  to 
speak  in  Tennessee  for  Van  Buren  against  Harrison.  During 
the  contest  Henry  Clay,  who  was  passing  through  Nashville, 
visited  Mrs.  Grundy,  and,  on  being  told  where  her  husband 
was,  said : '  Ah,  I  see !  Still  pleading  the  cause  of  criminals.' " 

Senator  Calhoun's  resolutions  were  to  this  effect : 

I.  The  Union  is  a  compact,  to  which  the  people  of  the 
several  States  are  parties,  each  having  acceded  thereto  as  a 
separate  sovereign  community  by  ratifying  the  Constitution. 


1833]  Nullification  383 

2.  In  forming  the  compact  the  people  of  the  States 
delegated  to  the  Federal  government  for  the  purposes  of 
the  Union  certain  definite  powers,  to  be  exercised  jointly, 
reserving  to   each   State  the  residuary  mass  of  powers. 
Therefore   when    the   Federal   government    assumes    the 
exercise  of  undelegated  powers  its  acts  are  of  none  effect. 
This  government  is  not  made  the  final  judge  of  the  disputed 
powers,  since  this  would  make  it,  and  not  the  Constitution, 
the  measure  of  its  powers;  therefore,  according  to  the  rule  in 
such  cases,  judgment  remains  to  the  States,  the  parties  to 
the  compact. 

3.  All  assertions  to  the  contrary  of  these  principles  are 
contrary  to  plain  historical  fact  and  reason,  and  all  exercise 
of  Federal  power  based  thereon  is  unconstitutional,  tending 
to  the  subversion  of  the  sovereignty  of  the  States,  the  de 
struction  of  the  Federal  character  of  the  Union,  and  the 
establishment  of  a  consolidated  government,  without  con 
stitutional  check  or  limitation,  and  which  must  necessarily 
terminate  in  the  loss  of  liberty  itself. 


Senator  Grundy's  resolutions  accepted  the  theory  of 
delegated  and  reserved  powers,  and,  by  asserting  that 
the  laying  of  import  duties  was  of  the  former  class, 
declared  that  the  tariff  acts  of  1828  and  1832  were 
constitutional,  whatever  opinions  might  exist  as  to 
their  policy  and  justice,  and  therefore  that  any  attempt 
to  annul  them  by  a  State  was  an  unconstitutional 
encroachment  on  Federal  power  and  rights,  and  so 
dangerous  to  the  political  institutions  of  the  country. 

In  a  speech  defending  his  resolutions  Senator  Calhoun 
stated  that  the  South,  being  in  a  minority  in  the  general 
government,  was  the  natural  champion  of  the  reserved 
powers,  and  the  North,  being  in  a  majority  in  that 
government,  was  the  natural  champion  of  the  delegated 
powers. 


384  American  Debate  Ii8a»- 

The  contest  was  one  in  which  the  weaker  section,  with 
its  peculiar  labor,  productions,  and  situation,  has  at  stake 
all  that  can  be  dear  to  freemen. 

He  rejoiced  in  the  situation  for  certain  reasons:  if  the 
South  did  not  yield,  while  it  would  not  participate  in  the 
privileges  of  government,  it  would  not  be  exposed  to  its 
corruptions;  and  the  fight  to  maintain  its  rights  would  call 
forth  the  highest  qualities,  moral  and  intellectual,  as  would 
be  witnessed  by  the  high  proportion,  with  respect  to  popula 
tion,  of  distinguished  statesmen  it  would  produce.  If  the 
South,  however,  gave  up  the  contest,  then  would  its  state  be 
more  wretched  than  that  of  the  slaves,  or  of  the  aborigines 
whom  its  people  had  expelled,1  while  the  state  of  the  entire 
country  would  be  one  of  the  most  debasing  calamity  and 
corruption. 

Senator  Webster  denied  the  proper  derivation  of  the 
twin  doctrines  of  Nullification  and  Secession  from  the 
Constitution : 

The  Constitution  does  not  provide  for  events  which  must 
be  preceded  by  its  own  destruction.  Secession  and  Nullifi 
cation  are  therefore  revolutionary,  for  they  seek  to  introduce 
a  new  paramount  authority  into  the  state.  This  does  not 
imply,  any  more  than  did  the  Revolution,  the  subversion  of 
government  in  all  its  branches — local  laws  and  municipal 
administration,  for  example. 

The  revolution  of  South  Carolina  if  permitted  will  spread 
throughout  the  country,  leading  to  a  total  dismemberment 
of  the  Union.  The  gentleman  seems  not  conscious  of  the 
direction  or  the  rapidity  of  his  own  course.  The  current  of 
his  opinion  sweeps  him  along,  he  knows  not  whither.  To 
begin  with  Nullification  with  the  intent  of  stopping  before 
Secession  is  as  if  one  were  to  take  the  plunge  of  Niagara 
and  cry  that  he  would  stop  half-way  down. 

1  A  significant  confession  of  the  oppressive  treatment  by  the  South  of 
the  negroes  and  Indians. 


1833]  Nullification  385 

Nullification  is  anarchy  as  well  as  revolution.  It  raises 
to  supreme  command  four-and-twenty  distinct  powers, 
each  professing  to  be  under  a  general  government,  and  yet 
each  setting  its  laws  at  defiance  at  pleasure.  If  the  laws 
cannot  be  executed  everywhere  they  cannot  long  be 
executed  anywhere.  Duties  and  imposts  must  be  uniform 
throughout  the  country.  We  cannot  have  one  law  for 
South  Carolina,  and  another  for  other  States.  The  gentle 
man  must  see  that  the  only  alternative  is  repeal  throughout 
the  Union  or  enforcement  in  South  Carolina. 

It  was  anarchy  of  this  sort  in  the  old  Confederation  that 
caused  us  to  adopt  the  Constitution — anarchy,  moreover, 
in  the  very  matter  of  national  revenue  against  which  South 
Carolina  is  revolting.  And  this  is  the  foundation  of  govern 
ment.  She  may  protest  against  the  tariff  for  its  feature  of 
protection,  but  the  effect  of  her  action  is  to  arrest  national 
revenue — the  sole  reliance  of  the  government  for  maintain 
ing  itself  and  performing  its  duties. 

Webster  then  expressed  in  four  propositions  his 
view  of  the  nature  of  the  Federal  Union : 

(i)  That  the  Union  is  not  a  league,  but  a  government 
proper,  founded  by  the  people  and  creating  direct  relations 
between  itself  and  individuals;  (2)  that  it  is  indissoluble 
except  by  revolution;  (3)  that  it  is  under  the  sovereignty 
of  the  Constitution,  the  constitutional  acts  of  Congress,  and 
treaties,  Congress,  in  cases  not  capable  of  assuming  the 
character  of  a  suit  in  law  or  equity,  being  judge  of  this 
supreme  law,  and  the  Supreme  Court,  in  such  cases,  being 
the  final  interpreter ;  and  (4)  that  nullification  of  such  a  law 
by  a  State  is  a  revolutionary  act. 

He  then  concluded: 

"Sir,  the  world  will  scarcely  believe  that  this  whole  con 
troversy,  and  all  the  desperate  measures  which  its  support 
as 


386  American  Debate  [1828-1833] 

requires,  have  no  other  foundation  than  a  difference  of 
opinion  upon  a  provision  of  the  Constitution  between  a 
majority  of  the  people  of  South  Carolina  on  one  side,  and 
a  vast  majority  of  the  whole  people  of  the  United  States  on 
the  other.  .  .  .  And  well  may  the  whole  world  be  incredu 
lous.  We,  who  hear  and  see  it,  can  ourselves  hardly  believe 
it.  ...  It  is  incredible  and  inconceivable  that  South 
Carolina  should  thus  plunge  headlong  into  resistance  to  the 
laws,  on  a  matter  of  opinion,  and  on  a  question  in  which  the 
preponderance  of  opinion,  both  of  the  present  day  and  of  all 
past  time,  is  so  overwhelmingly  against  her." 

The  "Force  Bill"  was  passed,  and  South  Carolina 
admitted  that  she  was  beaten  by  succumbing  to  the 
collection  of  the  customs  duties,  and  failing  at  this  time 
to  execute  her  threat  of  secession. 


CHAPTER  XII 

SECESSION 
I860-I86I 

Initiation  of  the  Secession  Movement  in  South  Carolina — Sketches  of 
Senators  James  H.  Hammond  and  James  Chesnut,  Jr. — Speech  of 
Chesnut — Debate  on  Secession  in  South  Carolina  Legislature: 
in  Favor  of  Delay,  Mr.  McGowan;  of  Immediate  Action,  Mr. 
Mullins — Latter  Course  Adopted — Ordinances  of  Secession  by  the 
Cotton  States — Protest  of  Governor  Beriah  Magoffin  [Ky.] — 
General  Winfield  Scott  Vainly  Advises  Strengthening  of  Southern 
Garrisons — Cabinet  Changes — Opinion  of  Attorney-General  Jere 
miah  S.  Black  on  Coercion — Sketch  of  Black — President  Buchanan 
Consults  with  Senator  Jefferson  Davis  [Miss.]  on  His  Message  to 
Congress — Sketch  of  Davis — Digest  of  the  Message — Debate  in 
the  Senate  upon  It:  Northern  Views  by  John  P.  Hale  [N.  H.]  and 
Stephen  A.  Douglas  [111.];  Southern  Views  by  Alfred  Iverson  [Ga.] 
and  Louis  T.  Wigfall  [Tex.]— Sketches  of  Hale,  Iverson,  and  Wigfall 
— London  Times  on  the  Message — Lazarus  W.  Powell  [Ky.]  Moves 
in  Senate  to  Appoint  Committee  on  Plan  of  Conciliation — Amend 
ed  by  Milton  S.  Latham  [Cal.]— Sketches  of  Powell  and  Latham — 
Debate  on  Secession  in  Senate:  in  Favor,  Judah  P.  Benjamin 
[La.];  Opposed,  Edward  D.  Baker  [Ore.]— Sketches  of  Debaters- 
Plan  of  Compromise  Presented  by  John  J.  Crittenden  [Ky.]t 
Amended  by  Robert  M.  T.  Hunter  [Va.],  and  Opposed  by  Daniel 
Clark  [N.  H.]— Sketches  of  Debaters — Plan  Defeated— Futile 
Peace  Negotiations — Controversy  over  Garrisoning  Fort  Sumter — 
Aid  Given  to  Southern  Confederacy  by  United  States  Cabinet 
Ministers  John  B.  Floyd  [Va.]  and  Jacob  Thompson  [Miss.] — 
Seizure  of  Federal  Property  in  the  South — Organization  of  the 
Southern  Confederacy — Inaugural  Addresses  of  President  Jefferson 
Davis  and  Vice- President  Alexander  H.  Stephens  [Ga.]— Sketch 
of  Stephens. 

THE  prediction  made  by  President  Jackson  in  the 
Nullification  contest   that   the   next  pretext  for 
secession  which  the  Calhoun  party  would  seize  upon 
would  probably  be  slavery  was  fulfilled  in  i860. 

38? 


388  American  Debate 

Owing  to  the  fact  that  slavery  was  fundamentally  an 
economic  question  and  only  secondarily  a  constitutional 
one,  the  story  of  the  bitter  controversy  over  it,  which 
raged  intermittently  from  the  time  when  the  first 
abolition  petition  was  presented  in  the  First  Congress 
under  the  Constitution  until  Abraham  Lincoln  was 
elected  President  on  the  anti-slavery  issue,  will  be  given 
in  Volume  II. 

On  October  25,  1860,  two  weeks  before  Lincoln's 
election,  which  had  been  rendered  certain  by  the 
division  of  the  Democratic  party  into  a  Northern  and  a 
Southern  faction,  a  meeting  of  South  Carolina  states 
men  was  held  at  the  residence  of  Senator  James  H. 
Hammond,1  at  which  there  were  present  Governor 
William  H.  Gist,  and  the  Senators  and  Representatives 
of  the  State  in  the  Federal  legislature,  together  with 
many  other  men  of  mark.  The  meeting  resolved  that 
the  State  should  secede  upon  the  event  of  Lincoln's 
election.  Similar  meetings  were  held  about  the  same 

1  James  Henry  Hammond,  a  lawyer,  became  editor  of  the  Southern 
Times  of  Columbia,  S.  C.,  in  1830,  at  which  time  he  advocated  Nullifica 
tion.  He  was  elected  to  Congress  in  1835,  but  resigned  in  1836  on 
account  of  ill  health.  From  1842  to  1844  he  was  Governor  of  the  State. 
He  was  chosen  to  fill  the  incompleted  term  in  the  United  States  Senate 
of  Andrew  P.  Butler  (1857-1860).  In  March,  1858,  he  delivered  a 
speech  on  the  admission  of  Kansas,  which  won  for  him  in  the  indignant 
North  the  title  of  "Mudsill  Hammond,"  because  in  it  he  declared 
that  society  was  necessarily  divided  into  two  classes,  the  people  of  leisure 
to  lead  in  "progress,  refinement,  and  civilization, "  and  the  laborers  who, 
by  doing  the  drudgery  of  the  world,  relieved  the  upper  class  to  perform 
their  function.  Referring  to  the  lowest  foundation  of  a  house  (houses 
were  then  constructed  in  Southern  country  districts  with  beams  laid 
directly  on  the  ground),  he  said  that  the  laborers  constituted  "the  very 
mudsills  of  society  and  of  political  government."  In  the  same  speech 
he  said  that  "Cotton  [the  chief  product  of  the  South,  on  which  that 
section  relied  for  economic  independence  and  political  predominance] 
is  King, "  a  phrase  whose  insolence  also  incensed  the  North. 


i86i]  Secession  389 

time  in  Georgia,  Alabama,  Mississippi,  and  Florida, 
at  which  like  resolutions  were  passed. 

Governor  Gist  called  the  legislature  to  meet  in 
extraordinary  session  on  November  5,  the  day  before 
election,  ostensibly  to  appoint  presidential  electors 
(those  of  South  Carolina  being  so  chosen,  instead  of 
by  the  people  directly,  consistently  with  the  State's 
theory  that  the  Federal  government  dealt  with  the 
people  only  through  the  State  governments),  but  really 
to  declare  in  favor  of  secession  and  adopt  military 
measures  to  maintain  it. 

James  Chesnut,  Jr.,1  one  of  the  Senators,  was  sere 
naded  on  the  evening  of  the  first  day  of  the  session. 
Replying  to  the  ovation  he  said  : 

"The  question  now  was,  Would  the  South  submit  to  a 
Black  Republican  President  and  Congress,  who  would 
construe  the  Constitution  and  administer  the  government 
in  their  own  hands,  not  by  the  law  of  the  instrument  itself, 
nor  by  that  of  the  Fathers  of  the  country  .  .  .  but  by 
rules  drawn  from  their  own  blind  consciences  and  crazy 
brains?  .  .  .  They  claim  the  dogmas  of  the  Declara 
tion  of  Independence  as  part  of  the  Constitution,  and  that 
it  is  their  right  and  duty  so  to  administer  the  government 
as  to  give  full  effect  to  them. " 

Other  South  Carolina  statesmen  spoke  in  a  similar 
vein. 

Debate  on  Secession  in  the  South  Carolina  Legisla 
ture.  There  was  unanimity  in  the  legislature  in  favor 

1  Chesnut  was  a  graduate  of  Princeton.  From  1842  to  1852  he  was 
an  assemblyman,  and  from  1854  to  1858,  a  senator,  in  the  South  Carolina 
legislature.  He  was  elected  to  the  United  States  Senate  in  1859.  He 
entered  the  Confederate  army  and  rose  to  the  rank  of  brigadier-general. 
In  1868  he  was  a  delegate  to  the  National  Democratic  Convention  which 
nominated  Horatio  Seymour  for  the  Presidency. 


390  American  Debate  [1860- 

of  secession,  but  an  animated  debate  ensued  on  the 
question  of  whether  South  Carolina  should  wait  for  the 
cooperation  of  the  other  " Cotton  States"  to  declare 
it. 

Mr.  McGowan  of  Abbeville  county  was  in  favor 
of  the  latter  course. 

"South  Carolina  has  sometimes  been  accused  of  a  para 
mount  desire  to  lead  or  to  disturb  the  councils  of  the  South. 
Let  us  make  one  last  effort  for  cooperation,  and,  in  doing 
so,  repel  the  false  and  unfounded  imputation.  Then,  if 
we  fail,  and  a  convention  is  called  under  these  circum 
stances,  I,  and  all  of  us,  will  stand  by  the  action  of  that 
convention. " 

Mr.  Mullins,  of  Marion  county,  advised  instant 
action.  He  spoke  of  the  rebuff  that  a  commissioner 
on  the  subject  of  cooperation  had  received  from  Vir 
ginia,  that  State  having  as  much  as  said  that  no  indigni 
ties  could  drive  her  to  take  the  leadership  for  Southern 
rights. 

"If  we  wait  for  cooperation,  slavery  and  State  rights 
will  be  abandoned,  State  sovereignty  and  the  cause  of  the 
South  lost  forever,  and  we  will  be  subject  to  a  dominion  the 
parallel  of  which  is  the  poor  Indian  under  the  British  East 
Indian  Company. " 

He  also  urged  as  a  reason  for  immediate  and  inde 
pendent  secession  the  high  probability  of  recognition  of 
South  Carolina  as  a  sovereign  government  by  the 
imperial  powers  of  Europe,  saying  he  had  authentic 
information  that  propositions  to  this  effect  had  been 
made  by  a  representative  of  one  of  these  countries, 
who  was  desirous  to  assure  to  that  power  such  a  supply 


i86i]  Secession  391 

of  cotton  for  their  future  as  their  increasing  demand 
for  that  article  would  require. 

On  November  7,  the  legislature  decided  on  im 
mediate  secession.  Edmund  Ruffin  [Va.],  the  influen 
tial  editor  of  an  agricultural  paper  circulating  widely 
through  the  South,  and  an  ardent  advocate  of  slave 
labor,  had  come  to  Columbia  to  urge  immediate  seces 
sion.  He  was  serenaded  on  the  evening  of  the  passage 
of  the  ordinance,  and  said  in  response  that  "the  first 
drop  of  blood  spilled  on  the  soil  of  South  Carolina  would 
bring  Virginia  and  every  Southern  State  with  them." 

Ordinances  of  Secession.  The  legislature  issued  a 
call  for  elections  to  a  secession  convention  to  be  held  on 
December  17.  Hammond  and  Chesnut  resigned  their 
seats  in  the  United  States  Senate,1  and  the  leading 
Federal  officers  in  the  State  followed  their  example. 

The  action  of  South  Carolina  met  with  quick  response 
in  the  other  Cotton  States,  the  legislatures  being  called 
in  special  session  to  act  on  secession.  Governor 
Samuel  Houston  [Tex.],  a  veteran  general  of  the  war  for 
Texan  Independence,  and  inclined  toward  the  Union, 
refused  to  issue  such  a  call,  whereupon  sixty  of  the 
legislators  did  so  unconstitutionally,  the  governor 
weakly  submitting,  and  shortly  afterwards  resigning  his 
office.  The  governors  and  legislatures  of  the  slave 
States  of  Delaware,  Maryland,  Kentucky,  and  Tennes 
see,  being  Unionist  in  sentiment,  refused  to  call  conven 
tions.  Governor  Beriah  Magoffin  [Ky.]  issued  an 
address  to  all  the  Southern  States  protesting  against 
the  contemplated  action: 

The  geography  of  this  country  does  not  admit  of  a  divi 
sion  ;  the  mouth  and  sources  of  the  Mississippi  river  cannot 

1  Their  resignations  were  not  accepted,  and,  on  July  n,  1861,  the 
Senate  expelled  them  as  traitors. 


392  American  Debate 

be  separated  without  the  horrors  of  civil  war.  We  cannot 
sustain  you  in  this  movement  merely  on  account  of  the 
election  of  Lincoln.  .  .  . 

Kentucky  claims  that,  standing  upon  the  same  sound 
platform  [of  State  Rights],  you  sympathize  with  her  in  her 
exposed,  perilous  border  position.  ...  If  you  secede, 
your  representatives  will  go  out  of  Congress,  and  leave  us 
at  the  mercy  of  a  Black  Republican  Government. 

He  declared  that  the  wise  policy  to  protect  Southern 
rights  was  for  the  slave  States  to  remain  in  the  Union 
in  united  opposition  to  the  anti-slavery  plans  of  the 
Administration. 

Arkansas,  North  Carolina,  Virginia,  and  Missouri 
held  conventions  in  which  Union  men  were  in  a  majority 
and  the  secession  of  these  States  was  thus  postponed. 
The  later  secession  of  Missouri  was  the  work  of  persons 
unauthorized  not  only  by  the  people  of  the  State,  but 
also  by  the  Confederacy  itself,  and,  while  it  was  formally 
recognized  by  the  Confederate  government,  was  invalid 
on  every  count,  including  the  theory  of  secession. 

The  South  Carolina  convention  adopted  an  Ordinance 
of  Secession  on  December  20,  1860,  with  a  Declaration 
of  Causes,  the  chief  of  which  was  the  failure  of  the 
Northern  States  to  fulfil  the  constitutional  obligation 
to  return  fugitive  slaves;  this  broke  the  " Federal  con 
tract"  said  the  convention,  and  so  gave  South  Carolina 
a  right  to  recede  from  it,  there  being  no  common  arbiter 
between  the  States.  Three  commissioners  were  sent 
to  Washington  to  treat  with  President  Buchanan  for 
the  delivery  of  the  United  States  property  in  South 
Carolina  to  the  new  nation,  to  adjust  her  share  in  the 
public  debt  of  the  United  States,  etc.  The  United 
States  executive  department  very  properly  refused  to 
treat  with  them,  for  the  literal  construction  of  the 


Secession  393 

Constitution  insisted  on  by  the  extreme  State  Rights 
theory,  as  well  as  the  view  that  the  Union  was  sovereign 
and  indissoluble,  forbade  this. 

On  January  9,  1861,  the  Mississippi  legislature  passed 
an  Ordinance  of  Secession  by  an  overwhelming  vote. 
On  the  loth  the  Florida  convention  took  similar  action, 
and  on  the  nth  the  Alabama  convention  declared  for 
secession  by  a  vote  of  61  to  39.  On  the  I9th,  after  an 
animated  debate,  in  which  Alexander  H.  Stephens  and 
Herschel  V.  Johnson,  who  had  been  the  candidate  on  the 
Douglas  ticket  for  Vice-President,  opposed  the  measure, 
the  Georgia  convention  passed  an  Ordinance  of  Seces 
sion  by  a  vote  of  208  to  89.  On  the  26th  the  Louisiana 
convention  passed  such  an  ordinance  by  a  vote  of  103 
to  17.  The  opponents  claimed  fraud  in  the  elections  to 
the  convention,  and  demanded  a  referendum  to  the 
people.  This  proposition  was  voted  down,  84  votes  to 
45.  On  February  i,  the  Texas  convention  passed  an 
Ordinance  of  Secession  by  an  almost  unanimous  vote. 
The  measure  was  referred  to  the  people  and  ratified  by 
a  large  majority. 

Course  of  President  Buchanan.  While  State  after 
State  was  thus  departing  from  the  Union  President 
James  Buchanan1  made  but  the  feeblest  efforts  to 
assert  Federal  authority  over  them,  especially  over  the 
Federal  property  within  their  limits.  Shortly  before 
the  election  of  Lincoln,  the  commanding  general  of  the 
army,  Winfield  Scott  (who  had  been  the  hero  of  two 
wars,  the  Second  with  Great  Britain,  and  the  Mexican 
War,  and  the  unsuccessful  Whig  candidate  for  President 
in  1852,  and  was  a  Virginian  of  the  most  fervent  loyalty 
to  the  principle  of  nationality,  believing  in  extreme 
measures  to  suppress  secession  in  its  incipiency),  wrote 

1  The  sketch  of  Buchanan  is  deferred  to  Volume  II. 


394  American  Debate  [1860- 

to  the  Secretary  of  War,  John  B.  Floyd,  expressing  the 
fear  that  the  South,  before  seceding,  would  endeavor 
to  get  possession  of  the  nine  Federal  forts  within  their 
borders,  and  therefore  urging  that  these  forts  be  fully 
garrisoned  to  resist  such  an  attempt.  No  action  was 
taken  on  his  recommendation,  and  later,  when,  events 
having  shown  the  wisdom  of  his  warning,  he  published 
the  letter  to  exonerate  himself,  he  aroused  the  wrath  of 
the  President  with  the  result  that  the  heads  of  the 
Administration  and  the  army  were  alienated  at  the 
crucial  time  when  their  cooperation  was  supremely 
needed  by  the  country. 

The  indecisive  course  of  the  President  also  had  a  dis 
integrating  effect  on  his  Cabinet,  pleasing  neither  the 
Southerners  nor  Northerners  who  composed  it.  On 
December  10,  1860,  Howell  Cobb  [Ga.],  Secretary  of  the 
Treasury,  resigned,  alleging  as  his  excuse  the  hopeless 
condition  of  the  public  funds.  Philip  F.  Thomas  [Md.], 
appointed  in  his  stead,  resigned  within  a  few  days,  and 
was  replaced  by  John  A.  Dix  [N.  Y.],  a  Democrat  of  the 
most  sterling  metal  of  patriotism,  as  was  shortly  indi 
cated  by  his  telegram  to  an  agent  he  had  sent  to  the 
South  to  prevent  the  surrender  of  Federal  revenue 
cutters:  "If  any  person  attempts  to  haul  down  the 
American  flag,  shoot  him  on  the  spot. "  On  December 
14,  Lewis  Cass  [Mich.],  Secretary  of  State,  resigned 
because  of  the  President's  refusal  to  reinforce  and  pro 
vision  the  Federal  garrison  in  Charleston  harbor.  He 
was  replaced  by  Attorney-General  Jeremiah  S.  Black 
[Pa.],  who  had  long  been  Buchanan's  closest  friend  and 
adviser,  and  Edwin  M.  Stanton  [OJ,  succeeded  to 
Black's  vacated  position. 

Constitutionality  of  Coercion.  On  November  17, 
1860,  the  President,  in  preparing  his  annual  message  to 


1861]  Secession  395 

Congress,  had  asked  Attorney-General  Black1  for  an 
opinion  upon  the  legal  status  of  the  situation.  Mr. 
Black  gave  it  as  his  opinion  that,  where,  owing  to  resig 
nations,  there  were  no  Federal  judges  in  a  State  to  issue 
judicial  process,  nor  officers  to  execute  it,  the  use  of 
Federal  troops  would  be  illegal,  since  these  were  in 
tended  to  aid  the  courts  and  marshals,  and  not  to 
replace  them.  He  therefore  concluded: 

If  war  cannot  be  legally  declared,  then  an  attempt  to  use 
force  against  a  State  would  be  ipso  facto  its  expulsion  from 
the  Union,  and,  being  treated  as  an  alien  and  an  enemy, 
she  would  be  compelled  to  act  accordingly.  And  if  Congress 
shall  break  up  the  Union  by  such  an  unconstitutional  act, 
all  the  States  will  be  absolved  from  their  Federal  obligations ; 
no  part  of  the  people  is  bound  to  contribute  money  and  men 
to  carry  on  such  a  contest. 

The  right  of  the  Federal  government  to  preserve  itself 
in  its  whole  constitutional  vigor  by  repelling  aggression  on 
its  property  and  officers  cannot  be  denied.  But  this  is  a 
totally  different  thing  from  an  offensive  war  to  punish  the 
people2  of  a  State  for  the  political  misdeeds  of  its  government, 
or  to  prevent  a  threatened  violation  of  the  Constitution,  or 
to  enforce  an  acknowledgment  that  the  government  of  the 
United  States  is  supreme.  The  States  are  colleagues  of 
one  another;  and,  if  some  of  them  should  conquer  the  rest, 


1  Jeremiah  Sullivan  Black  was  elected  to  the  Supreme  Court  of 
Pennsylvania  in  1851,  and  was  appointed  Attorney-General  of  the 
United  States  in  1857.  After  his  transfer  to  the  State  Department  in 
1860  he  exerted  himself  to  oppose  the  plans  of  the  secessionists.  Late 
in  life  he  had  a  newspaper  controversy  with  Jefferson  Davis  on  the 
question  of  secession. 

*  The  Attorney-General  ignored  the  fact  that  the  people  of  South 
Carolina  had  authorized,  through  their  legislative  representatives,  the 
acts  of  secession,  and  the  seizure  of  Federal  property  and  opposition 
to  Federal  officers  which  this  involved. 


396  American  Debate  [1860- 

and  hold  them  as  subjugated  provinces,  it  would  totally 
destroy  the  whole  theory  upon  which  they  are  now  con 
nected. 

The  President  also  sought  the  advice  of  Senator 
Jefferson  Davis  [Miss.]  in  preparing  his  message.  Ac 
cording  to  Davis 's  testimony, x  Buchanan  read  to  him 
the  rough  draft  of  the  document,  and  accepted  all  the 
modifications  which  he  suggested.  Says  Davis  : 

"The  message  was,  however,  somewhat  changed,  and, 
with  great  deference  to  the  wisdom  and  statesmanship  of 
the  author,  I  must  say  that,  in  my  judgment,  the  last  alter 
ations  were  unfortunate." 

Sketch  of  Davis.  Jefferson  Davis  was  born  in  1808 
in  Kentucky,  but  his  father,  a  veteran  of  the  Revolu 
tion,  removed  shortly  after  this  to  Mississippi.  Young 
Davis  entered  Transylvania  College  at  Lexington,  Ky., 
but  left  it  in  1824  to  accept  an  appointment  of  President 
Monroe  in  West  Point.  Soon  after  his  graduation  (in 
1828)  he  served  in  the  Black  Hawk  War  of  1831-32  (in 
which  Abraham  Lincoln  was  a  militiaman).  Though 
advanced  to  the  rank  of  lieutenant,  he  resigned  in  1835, 
and,  eloping  with  the  daughter  of  Colonel  Zachary 
Taylor,  settled  near  Vicksburg  as  a  cotton  planter.  In 
1844,  as  an  elector  on  the  Polk  and  Dallas  ticket,  he 
attracted  public  attention  by  his  able  speeches,  and  in 
the  following  year  was  sent  to  Congress.  Here  he  took 
active  part  in  the  debates  on  the  Mexican  War,  the 
Oregon  boundary,  and  the  tariff.  On  the  outbreak  of 
the  war  with  Mexico  he  resigned  his  seat  to  become 
colonel  of  the  First  Mississippi  Volunteers.  His 

1  Rise  and  Fall  of  the  Confederate  Government,  vol.  i.,  p.  59. 


x86i]  Secession  397 

gallantry  in  action,  proved  by  a  severe  wound,  caused 
President  Polk  at  the  close  of  the  war  to  offer  him  the 
commission  of  brigadier-general,  but  this  he  declined 
on  the  ground  that  a  militia  appointment  by  the  Federal 
executive  was  unconstitutional.  He  was  elected  to  the 
Senate  in  1847,  and  placed  on  the  military  committee 
as  chairman.  He  took  a  leading  part  in  the  slavery 
controversy  which  arose  to  its  greatest  intensity  at  this 
period.  In  1851  he  resigned  to  become  the  extreme 
State  Rights,  or  " resistance"  candidate  for  Governor 
of  his  State.  His  so-called  "Union"  opponent,  Senator 
Henry  S.  Foote,  was  elected.  In  1852  Davis  actively 
supported  the  candidacy  of  Franklin  Pierce  for  the 
Presidency,  and,  on  Pierce 's  election,  was  appointed 
Secretary  of  War.  He  administered  his  office  with 
notable  efficiency,  especially  in  the  introduction  in  the 
army  of  the  most  modern  scientific  weapons.  Having, 
as  a  Senator,  advocated  the  construction  of  the  Pacific 
railroad  as  a  means  of  unifying  the  nation,  he  took 
charge  with  great  zeal  of  the  survey  of  the  possible 
routes. 

At  the  close  of  Pierce 's  administration  he  reentered  the 
Senate,  where  he  served  until  his  State  seceded  from 
the  Union,  when  he  resigned  in  a  speech  remarkable  in 
the  annals  of  American  eloquence  for  its  high  and  noble 
tone  of  sincerity  and  conviction,  and  its  deep  feeling. 
Indeed,  as  a  debater  Mr.  Davis  was  the  soul  of  courtesy 
—a  gentleman  in  every  sense  of  the  word.  He  did  not 
indulge  in  the  bitter  and  brutal  attacks  upon  the  anti- 
slavery  men  of  the  North  to  which  a  large  number  of 
Southern  statesmen  were  prone,  giving  currency  to  the 
term  of  "  plantation  manners. "  Wherever  possible  he 
touched  upon  slavery  in  its  economic  and  constitutional, 
rather  than  partisan  aspect,  despite  the  fact  that  in 


398  American  Debate  [1860- 

political  action  he  was  an  extreme  sectional  and  party 
man.  He  particularly  opposed  the  "popular  sover 
eignty"  theory  of  Senator  Stephen  A.  Douglas  [111.],  and 
led  in  the  fight  which,  early  in  1860,  "read  him  out" 
of  the  regular  (Administration)  Democratic  party,  and 
so  defeated  all  chance  of  union  upon  him  as  presidential 
candidate  by  the  Northern  and  Southern  Democrats.1 
Congress  assembled  on  December  3,  1860,  the  Sena 
tors  from  South  Carolina  being  absent.  The  last 
annual  message  of  President  Buchanan  began  with  a 
discussion  of  the  great  crisis  before  the  country,  and 
followed  the  argument  of  the  Attorney-General.  After 
a  review  of  the  slavery  question,  in  which  he  cast  the 
blame  for  dissension  in  the  country  upon  the  Aboli 
tionists  who  had  circulated  pictorial  pamphlets  through 
out  the  South,  of  a  character  calculated  ' '  to  excite  the 
passions  of  the  slaves, "  and,  in  the  language  of  President 
Jackson,  "to  stimulate  them  to  insurrection,  and  pro 
duce  all  the  horrors  of  a  servile  war, "  Buchanan  said: 

"How  easy  would  it  be  for  the  American  people  to  settle 
the  slavery  question  forever,  and  to  restore  peace  and 
harmony  in  this  distracted  country! 

"They,  and  they  alone,  can  do  it.  All  that  is  necessary 
.  .  .  and  all  for  which  the  slave  States  have  ever  con 
tended,  is  to  be  let  alone,  and  permitted  to  manage  their 
domestic  institution  in  their  own  way.  As  sovereign 
States,  they,  and  they  alone,  are  responsible  before  God 
and  the  world  for  the  slavery  existing  among  them.  For 
this,  the  people  of  the  North  are  no  more  responsible,  and 
[in  this]  have  no  more  right  to  interfere,  than  [for  and]  with 
similar  institutions  in  Russia  or  Brazil.  Upon  their  good 
sense  and  patriotic  forbearance  I  confess  I  still  greatly  rely. 
Without  their  aid  it  is  beyond  the  power  of  any  President, 

1  See  Great  Debates  in  American  History,  vol.  v.,  chap.  vii. 


Secession  399 

no  matter  what  may  be  his  own  political  proclivities,  to 
restore  peace  and  harmony  among  the  States.  Wisely 
limited  and  restrained  as  is  his  power,  under  our  Constitu 
tion  and  laws,  he  alone  can  accomplish  but  little,  for  good 
or  for  evil,  on  such  a  momentous  question.  .  .  . 

"The  election  of  any  one  .  .  .  to  the  office  of  President 
does  not  of  itself  afford  just  cause  for  dissolving  the  Union. 
...  In  order  to  justify  a  resort  to  revolutionary  resist 
ance,  the  Federal  government  must  be  guilty  of  a  '  deliber 
ate,  palpable,  and  dangerous  exercise '  of  powers  not  granted 
by  the  Constitution.  .  .  Reason,  justice,  a  regard  for 
the  Constitution,  all  require  that  we  shall  wait  for  some 
overt  and  dangerous  act  on  the  part  of  the  President-elect 
before  resorting  to  such  a  remedy.  .  .  . 

"The  most  palpable  violations  of  constitutional  duty 
which  have  yet  been  committed  consist  in  the  acts  of 
different  State  legislatures  to  defeat  the  execution  of  the 
Fugitive  Slave  law.  It  ought  to  be  remembered,  however, 
that  for  these  acts  neither  Congress  nor  any  President  can 
justly  be  held  responsible .  .  . 

"The  Southern  States,  standing  on  the  basis  of  the  Con 
stitution,  have  a  right  to  demand  [the  repeal  of  these  State 
acts].  Should  it  be  refused,  .  .  .  the  injured  States,  after 
having  first  used  all  peaceful  and  constitutional  means  to 
obtain  redress,  would  be  justified  in  revolutionary  resistance 
to  the  government  of  the  Union.  .  .  . 

"In  order  to  justify  secession  as  a  constitutional  remedy, 
it  must  be  on  the  principle  that  the  Federal  government  is 
a  mere  voluntary  association  of  States,  to  be  dissolved  at 
pleasure  by  any  one  of  the  contracting  parties.  If  this  be 
so,  the  Confederacy  [Union]  is  a  rope  of  sand,  to  be  pene 
trated  and  dissolved  by  the  first  adverse  wave  of  public 
opinion  in  any  one  of  the  States .... 

"Such  a  principle  is  wholly  inconsistent  with  the  history 
as  well  as  the  character  of  the  Federal  Constitution .... 
It  was  not  until  many  years  after  the  origin  of  the  Federal 
government  that  such  a  proposition  was  first  advanced. 


400  American  Debate  [1860- 

It  was  then  met  and  refuted  by  the  conclusive  arguments 
of  President  Jackson. 

"It  is  not  pretended  that  any  clause  in  the  Constitution 
gives  countenance  to  such  a  theory.  It  is  altogether 
founded  upon  inference  .  .  .  from  the  sovereign  char 
acter  of  the  several  States.  .  .  .  But  is  it  beyond  the 
power  of  a  State,  like  an  individual,  to  yield  a  portion  of 
its  sovereign  rights  to  secure  the  remainder?  In  the  lan 
guage  of  Mr.  Madison,  who  has  been  called  the  Father 
of  the  Constitution,  'it  was  formed  by  the  States — that  is, 
by  the  people  of  each  of  the  States,  acting  in  their  highest 
sovereign  capacity;  and  formed,  consequently,  by  the  same 
authority  which  formed  the  State  constitutions.'  .  .  . 

"That  the  Union  was  designed  to  be  perpetual  appears 
conclusively  from  the  nature  and  extent  of  the  powers 
conferred  by  the  Constitution  on  the  Federal  government. 
These  powers  embrace  the  very  highest  attributes  of  na 
tional  sovereignty.  They  place  both  the  sword  and  the 
purse  under  its  control  .  .  .  and  [provide]  effectual  means 
to  restrain  the  States  from  interfering  with  their  exercise, 
.  .  .  [the  Constitution  declaring]  that  'this  Constitution 
and  the  laws  of  the  United  States  .  .  .  shall  be  the  supreme 
law  of  the  land;  and  the  judges  in  every  State  shall  be  bound 
thereby,  anything  in  the  constitution  or  laws  of  any  State  to 
the  contrary  notwithstanding. '  .  .  . 

"It  may  be  asked,  then,  are  the  people  of  the  States 
without  redress  against  the  tyranny  and  oppression  of  the 
Federal  government?  By  no  means.  [Here  he  stated  the 
right  of  revolution,  expressed  in  the  Declaration  of  In 
dependence.]  Secession  is  neither  more  nor  less  than 
revolution. 

"What,  in  the  meantime,  is  the  responsibility  and  true 
position  of  the  Executive?  He  is  bound  by  solemn  oath 
.  .  .  'to  take  care  that  the  laws  be  faithfully  executed.' 
But  what  if  [as  in  the  present  case]  the  performance  of  this 
duty  .  .  .  has  been  rendered  impracticable  by  events 
over  which  he  could  have  exercised  no  control?" 


1861]  Secession  401 

Here  he  recited  the  acts  of  Congress  of  February  28, 
1795,  and  March  3,  1807,  authorizing  the  President  to 
call  forth  in  such  cases,  the  militia,  and  to  employ  the 
army  and  navy  to  enforce  the  laws,  having  first,  by 
proclamation,  commanded  the  insurgents  to  disperse. 
Now  in  the  present  case,  he  said,  this  action  cannot  be 
legally  taken,  there  being  no  Federal  judicial  authority 
in  South  Carolina  to  issue  process,  and  no  Federal 
marshals  to  execute  it.  Congress  therefore  must 
remedy  the  deficiency  if  this  is  constitutionally  possible. 

"The  same  insuperable  obstacles  do  not  lie  in  the  way  of 
executing  the  laws  for  the  collection  of  the  customs.  The 
revenue  still  continues  to  be  collected  ...  at  Charleston. 

"In  regard  to  the  property  of  the  United  States  in  South 
Carolina.  .  .  .  The  officer  in  command  of  the  forts  has 
received  orders  to  act  strictly  on  the  defensive.  [In  event 
of  attack]  the  responsibility  for  consequences  would  right 
fully  rest  upon  the  heads  of  the  assailants. 

"Apart  from  the  execution  of  the  laws  .  .  .  the  Execu 
tive  has  no  authority  to  decide  what  shall  be  the  relations 
between  the  Federal  government  and  South  Carolina.  .  .  . 
It  is  therefore  my  duty  to  submit  to  Congress  the  whole 
question.  .  .  . 

"This,  fairly  stated,  is:  Has  the  Constitution  delegated 
to  Congress  the  power  to  coerce  a  State  into  submission 
which  is  attempting  to  withdraw  .  .  .  from  the  Con 
federacy  [Union]?  .  .  .  This  power  .  .  .  was  ex 
pressly  refused  by  the  convention  which  framed  the 
Constitution.  * 

"It  may  be  safely  asserted  that  the  power  to  make  war 
against  a  State  is  at  variance  with  the  whole  spirit  and  intent 
of  the  Constitution.  Suppose  such  a  war  should  result  in 

1  See  speeches  of  Madison  on  May  31  and  June  8,  1787,  in  Elliott's  De 
bates  on  the  Constitution. 
26 


4°2  American  Debate  [1860- 

the  subjugation  of  a  State;  how  are  we  to  govern  it  after 
ward?  Shall  we  hold  it  as  a  province,  and  govern  it  by 
despotic  power?  .  .  .  Congress  possess  many  means 
of  preserving  [the  Union]  by  conciliation;  but  the  sword 
was  not  placed  in  their  hand  to  preserve  it  by  force." 

The  President  then  suggested  as  a  conciliatory  ex 
pedient  an  amendment  of  the  Constitution  clearly 
stating  the  assertions  of  the  disputed  Dred  Scott  de 
cision,  namely  (i)  the  right  of  property  in  slaves  in 
States  where  they  now  or  may  hereafter  exist ;  (2)  recog 
nition  of  Slavery  in  the  Territories;  and  (3)  validity  of 
the  Fugitive  Slave  law. 

The  President's  message  was  debated  at  length  in 
both  the  Senate  and  the  House.  In  the  former,  the 
Republican  view  of  the  message  was  voiced  by  John  P. 
Hale  [N.  H.].  Varying  Southern  views  were  expressed 
by  Alfred  Iverson  [GaJ  and  Louis  T.  Wigfall  [Tex.]. 

Sketch  of  Hale.  John  Parker  Hale,  before  he  joined 
the  Republican  party,  was  a  Free  State  Democrat. 
Five  years  after  his  graduation  from  Bowdoin,  and  two 
after  his  admission  to  the  bar,  he  was  elected  to  the 
New  Hampshire  assembly  as  a  Democrat.  In  1834  ne 
was  appointed  a  Federal  district-attorney  by  President 
Jackson.  He  was  removed  in  1841  by  President  Tyler 
on  party  grounds.  He  served  in  Congress  from  1843  to 
1845,  when  he  virtually  declined  reelection  by  refusing 
to  support  the  annexation  of  Texas,  a  Democratic 
measure.  On  this  subject  he  held  a  memorable  debate 
with  Franklin  Pierce  at  Concord,  N.  H.,  June  5,  1845. 
In  1846  he  was  elected  by  the  Whigs  and  independent 
Democrats  to  the  State  legislature,  of  which  he  was  made 
Speaker.  He  entered  the  United  States  Senate  in 
1847,  and  in  the  same  year  declined  the  nomination  of 


1861]  Secession  4°3 

President  by  the  National  Liberty  party,  supporting, 
however,  ex-President  Van  Buren,  who  accepted  this 
nomination  in  1848.  He  was  the  only  distinctive  anti- 
slavery  man  in  the  Senate  until  joined  by  Salmon  P. 
Chase  [O.]  in  1849,  and  by  Charles  Sumner  in  1851. 
In  1852  he  was  nominated  for  President  by  the  Free- 
soil  party.  Owing  to  his  anti-slavery  views,  he  failed 
of  renomination  by  the  Democrats  for  the  Senate,  and 
in  1853  he  retired  to  law-practice  in  New  York  City. 
In  1855  he  was  elected  to  the  Senate  as  a  Republican 
to  fill  an  unexpired  term,  and  continued  in  this  body 
until  1865,  when  he  was  sent  abroad  as  minister  to  Spain. 
Owing  to  a  dispute  with  his  secretary  of  legation,  due 
probably  to  Hale's  failing  health,  he  was  recalled  in 
1870.  He  died  in  1873. 

Senator  Hale  was  probably  the  most  sarcastic  of 
American  statesmen,  and  was  both  feared  and  hated  by 
his  opponents.  He  was  imposing  in  appearance,  and 
had  a  clear  voice  and  ready  use  of  language,  being  a 
master  of  pathos,  as  well  as  of  wit  and  humor. 

Sketch  of  Iverson.  Alfred  Iverson  was  a  graduate 
of  Princeton,  and  a  lawyer  of  repute  in  Columbus,  Ga. 
After  service  in  the  legislature  of  the  State,  and  as 
judge  of  the  superior  court,  he  entered  Congress  in 
1846.  He  took  his  seat  in  the  Senate  in  1855.  On  Jan 
uary  6,  1859,  he  made  a  notable  reply  to  the  "Irre 
pressible  Conflict"  speech  of  Senator  William  H. 
Seward.1 

Sketch  of  Wigfall.  Louis  Trezevant  Wigfall  was 
a  native  of  South  Carolina,  in  the  College  of  which  State 
he  received  his  education,  leaving  before  graduation, 
however,  to  go  to  Florida  as  a  lieutenant  of  volunteers 
to  fight  the  Seminoles.  He  subsequently  studied  law 

1  See  Great  Debates  in  American  History,  vol.  v.,  p.  180. 


404  American  Debate  U86o- 

at  the  University  of  Virginia.  Removing  to  Texas  he 
there  entered  into  the  practice  of  his  profession.  After 
service  in  the  State  assembly  and  senate,  he  was  elected 
to  the  United  States  Senate,  taking  his  seat  in  January, 
1860.  Here  he  won  recognition  by  his  brilliant,  im 
passioned  speeches  as  one  of  the  ablest  and  most 
uncompromising  advocates  of  ''Southern  rights,"  espe 
cially  slavery.  At  the  next  session  he  did  not  return  to 
Washington,  but,  as  an  aide  to  General  Beauregard, 
took  part  in  the  bombardment  of  Fort  Sumter,  and  was 
that  officer's  emissary  to  Major  Anderson  to  demand 
the  surrender  of  the  fort.  On  July  n,  1861,  he  was 
expelled  from  the  Senate.  He  rose  in  the  Confederate 
army  to  the  rank  of  brigadier-general.  He  also  repre 
sented  Texas  in  the  Confederate  House  and  Senate. 
At  the  end  of  the  war  he  went  to  England,  but  returned 
in  1873  and  settled  in  Baltimore.  He  died  while  on  a 
lecture  tour  in  Texas.  He  was  an  ardent  partisan,  and 
took  part  in  a  number  of  duels  which  resulted  from  his 
speeches. 

Senator  Hale  was  quite  sarcastic  in  discussing  Presi 
dent  Buchanan's  message. 

"I  have  read  it  somewhat  carefully,  and,  if  I  understand 
it,  it  is  this :  South  Carolina  has  just  cause  in  seceding  from 
the  Union;  that  is  the  first  proposition.  The  second  is  that 
she  has  no  right  to  secede.  The  third  is  that  we  have 
no  right  to  prevent  her  from  seceding.  .  .  .  The  power 
of  the  country,  if  I  understand  the  President,  consists  in 
what  Dickens  makes  the  English  constitution  to  be — a 
power  to  do  nothing  at  all. 

"Now,  sir,  I  think  it  was  incumbent  on  the  President  to 

point  out  definitely  and  recommend  to  Congress  some  rule 

of  action.    .    .    .     But   ...   he  has  entirely  avoided  it. 

He  has  acted  like  the  ostrich,  which  hides  her 


Secession  405 

head,  and  therefore  thinks  to  escape  danger.  Sir,  the  only 
way  to  escape  danger  is  to  look  it  in  the  face.  ...  As 
I  understand  the  aspect  of  affairs  [the  South]  looks  to  noth 
ing  else  except  unconditional  surrender  on  the  part  of  the 
majority.  ...  If  it  is  preannounced  and  determined 
that  the  voice  of  the  majority  expressed  through  the  regular 
and  constituted  forms  of  the  Constitution  will  not  be  sub 
mitted  to,  then,  sirs,  this  is  not  a  union  of  equals;  it  is  a 
union  of  a  dictatorial  oligarchy  on  the  one  side,  and  a  herd 
of  slaves  and  cowards  on  the  other." 

Senator  Iverson  denied  that  the  first  part  of  the 
message  was  inconsistent. 

"It  is  true  that  the  President  denies  the  constitutional 
right  of  a  State  to  secede  .  .  .  while,  at  the  same  time 
he  also  states  that  the  Federal  government  has  no  constitu 
tional  right  to  coerce  a  State  back  into  the  Union.  .  .  . 
I  do  not  see  any  inconsistency  in  that."  ....  Seces 
sion  is  an  act  of  revolution.  It  is  for  the  Federal  govern 
ment  to  decide  whether  it  will  war  on  the  revolted  State, 
or  let  her  remain  in  peace  as  an  independent  sovereignty. 
This  is  a  question  of  expediency. 

Certainly  the  Federal  government  has  no  constitutional 
right  to  compel  a  State  to  come  back  into  the  Union.  It 
may  be  a  casus  omissus  in  the  Constitution,  but  I  should  like 
to  know  where  the  power  exists  in  that  instrument  to  coerce 
a  sovereign  State. 

But  the  President  is  inconsistent  when  he  declares  that 
the  laws  of  the  United  States  operate  directly  on  each 
individual  in  a  State,  and  yet  that  the  State  is  not  to  be 
coerced.  Of  course,  if  you  compel  obedience  to  the  laws 
from  all  the  citizens  you  enforce  them  against  the  State, 
which  is  the  sum  of  its  inhabitants. 

You  talk  about  concessions — the  repeal  of  the  personal 
liberty  bills.1  Repeal  them  all  to-morrow,  sir,  and  it  would 

1  The  State  acts  against  the  Fugitive  Slave  law  were  so  denominated. 


406  American  Debate 

not  stop  the  progress  of  this  revolution.  The  personal 
liberty  bills  are  merely  an  evidence  of  that  deep-seated, 
widespread  hostility  to  our  institutions,  which  must  sooner 
or  later  end,  in  this  Union,  in  their  extinction. 

Nor  do  we  suppose  there  will  be  any  overt  acts  by  Mr. 
Lincoln.  For  one,  I  do  not  dread  these.  I  do  not  propose 
to  wait  for  them.  Why,  sir,  the  power  of  this  Federal 
government  could  be  so  exercised  against  slavery  that, 
without  an  overt  act,  the  institution  would  not  last  ten 
years.  Seeing  the  storm  in  the  distance,  we  are  seeking 
our  safety  before  it  shall  burst  upon  us  when  we  are  not  in  a 
situation  to  defend  ourselves. 

I  do  not  think  there  will  be  war.  I  believe  that  the 
Northern  States,  under  the  Federal  government  will  see 
that  the  true  policy  is  to  let  us  go  in  peace,  and  make 
treaties  of  amity  and  commerce  with  us,  from  which  they 
will  derive  more  advantages  than  from  any  attempt  to 
coerce  us.  I  have  no  doubt  but  that  both  of  us  would  then 
live  more  happily  and  prosperously  and  with  greater  friend 
ship  than  we  live  now  in  this  Union.  Sir,  disguise  the  fact 
as  you  will,  there  is  an  enmity  between  the  Northern  and 
Southern  people  which  you  cannot  eradicate  while  we  are 
bound  together.  Look  at  the  spectacle  on  this  floor.  You 
sit  upon  your  side,  silent  and  gloomy;  we  sit  upon  ours 
with  knit  brows  and  portentous  scowls.  This  is  a  type  of 
the  feeling  that  exists  between  the  two  sections.  I  believe 
that  the  Northern  people  hate  the  South  worse  than  ever 
the  English  people  hated  France;  and  I  can  tell  my  breth 
ren  over  there  that  there  is  no  love  lost  on  the  part  of  the 
South. 

Senator  Wigfall  differed  with  Senator  Iverson  on  the 
nature  of  secession. 

In  1852  the  Democratic  party  at  Baltimore  adopted 
the  Kentucky  and  Virginia  Resolutions,  with  Mr.  Madison's 
Report  as  their  creed.  No  man  who  professes  to  believe 
those  doctrines  can  deny  that  the  States  are  sovereign, 


1861]  Secession  407 

that  the  Constitution  is  a  compact  between  the  States,  that 
the  States  are  the  final  judges  of  the  compact,  and  therefore 
that  a  State  has  a  right  to  secede  whenever  it  sees  fit. 
Secession  is  a  constitutional  and  not  revolutionary  act. 

When  Texas  ratified  the  Constitution,  the  laws  of  the 
United  States  became  operative  within  the  limits  of  the 
State.  When  Texas,  in  her  sovereign  capacity,  shall  revoke 
the  ratification  these  laws  will  cease  to  operate  there,  for 
it  no  longer  will  form  a  part  of  the  United  States. 

A  State  has  a  right  to  withdraw  from  the  Union  whether 
there  be  cause  or  not  for  doing  so.  The  Federal  govern 
ment  may  then,  with  or  without  cause,  declare  war  on  her, 
as  a  foreign  nation,  if  it  will.  Then  all  citizens  of  the  State 
fighting  under  its  banners  must  be  treated  as  prisoners  of 
war  if  captured  in  battle  by  the  United  States,  and  all 
citizens  of  that  State  fighting  for  the  United  States,  if  so 
captured  by  the  State,  may  be  executed  as  traitors. 

The  United  States  cannot  with  grace  coerce  a  seceded  State 
back  into  the  Union,  for  the  Declaration  of  Independence 
declares  that  every  people  have  a  right  to  live  under  such 
form  of  government  as  suits  them.  This  is  a  right  that 
cannot  be  impaired  by  the  fact  that  a  State,  such  as  Texas, 
Louisiana,  or  Florida,  was  originally  purchased  by  the  rest 
of  the  Union. 

The  President  has  declared  that  the  doctrine  of  secession 
is  of  late  origin.  I  beg  to  differ  with  him.  The  New 
York  convention,  in  ratifying  the  Constitution,  declared: 
"That  the  powers  of  government  may  be  reassumed  by  the 
people  whensoever  it  shall  become  necessary  to  their 
happiness."1  As  in  every  contract,  such  a  reservation 
permits  the  party  making  it  to  recede  from  the  contract. 

The  Senator  from  New  Hampshire  says  we  are  reversing 
the  rule  that  the  majority  should  govern.  Now  if  we  pro 
posed  to  remain  in  the  Union  we  should  undoubtedly  sub 
mit  to  the  inauguration  of  any  man  elected  President  by  a 

1  Elliott's  Debates  on  the  Federal  Constitution,  vol.  i.,  p.  361. 


408  American  Debate  [1860- 

constitutional  majority.  But  we  intend  to  leave  the  Union. 
Then,  if  you  desire  it,  try  to  bring  us  back.  If  you  succeed, 
you  may  be  like  the  man  who  purchased  the  elephant — you 
may  find  it  rather  difficult  to  decide  what  you  will  do  with 
the  animal. 

The  President  says  that  there  is  no  power  in  the  govern 
ment  to  keep  the  Union  together  by  force;  and  yet,  in  the 
same  breath,  he  says  he  will  collect  the  customs  in  Charles 
ton  because  there  is  a  collector  there,  but  will  not  enforce 
the  Federal  judicial  power  because  there  are  no  Federal 
judges  or  marshals.  Is  there  anything  to  prevent  him  from 
appointing  judges  and  marshals? 

It  is  important  to  know  what  the  President  really  means. 
If  he  intends  to  coerce  South  Carolina,  were  I  a  citizen  of 
that  State,  I  would,  at  the  first  moment  the  fact  became 
manifest,  seize  upon  the  forts,  the  arms,  and  the  munitions 
of  war,  and  raise  the  cry,  "To  your  tents,  0  Israel !  and  to  the 
God  of  battles  be  the  issue. " 

On  January  3,  1861,  Senator  Stephen  A.  Douglas1 
[111.]  replied  to  the  contention  of  Senator  Wigfall  that 
the  right  of  secession  superseded  all  claims  of  the  Union 
on  a  State  because  of  money  paid  by  all  the  States  for 
its  purchase.  Referring  to  a  recommendation  in  the 
President's  message  that  Congress  appropriate  money 
to  purchase  Cuba,  he  said : 

''What  a  brilliant  achievement  it  would  be  to  pay  Spain 
$300,000,000  for  Cuba,  and  immediately  admit  the  island 
into  the  Union  as  a  State,  and  let  her  secede  to  Spain  the 
next  day,  when  the  Spanish  Queen  would  be  ready  to  sell 
the  island  again  for  half  price,  or  double  price,  according  to 
the  gullibility  of  the  purchaser ! 

"Out  of  the  annexation  of  Texas  grew  the  war  with 
Mexico,  in  which  we  expended  $100,000,000,  and  were  left 

«  The  sketch  of  Douglas  is  deferred  to  Volume  II. 


l86lJ  Secession  409 

to  mourn  the  loss  of  ten  thousand  as  gallant  men  as  ever 
died  .  .  .  for  the  honor  and  glory  of  their  country!  We 
have  since  spent  millions  ...  to  defend  her  against  the 
assaults  of  all  her  enemies  until  she  became  strong  enough 
to  protect  herself.  We  are  now  called  upon  to  acknowledge 
that  Texas  has  a  moral,  just,  and  constitutional  right  to 
rescind  the  act  of  admission  into  the  Union;  .  .  .  seize 
the  forts  and  public  buildings  which  were  constructed  with 
our  money;  .  .  .  and  leave  us  to  pay  $100,000,000. 
and  mourn  the  death  of  the  brave  men  who  sacrified  their 
lives  in  defending  the  integrity  of  her  soil.  In  the  name  of 
[these]  gallant  spirits  ...  I  protest  against  the  right  of 
Texas  to  separate  herself  from  the  Union  without  our 
consent. " 

The  effect  of  the  President's  message  was  most  dis 
astrous  to  the  prestige  of  the  United  States  abroad. 
Said  the  London  Times  on  January  9,  1861 : 

"Never  for  many  years  can  the  United  States  be  to  the 
world  what  they  have  been.  Mr.  Buchanan's  message  has 
been  a  greater  blow  to  the  American  people  than  all  the  rants 
of  the  Georgian  governor  or  the  'ordinances'  of  the 
Charleston  convention.  The  President  has  dissipated  the 
idea  that  the  States  which  elected  him  constitute  one  people. 
We  had  thought  that  the  federation  was  of  the  nature 
of  a  nationality;  we  find  that  it  is  nothing  more  than  a 
partnership. 

Conciliation.  On  December  6,  1860,  Lazarus  W. 
Powell  [Ky.] x  moved  in  the  Senate  to  refer  that  part  of 
the  President's  message  which  referred  to  the  present 

1  Powell  was  admitted  to  the  bar  in  1835;  was  Governor  of  Kentucky 
1851-55;  and  United  States  Senator  1859-65.  During  the  Civil  War 
he  opposed  strenuously  and  in  one  case,  that  of  military  interference  with 
elections  (see  Great  Debates  in  American  History,  vol.  vi.,  p.  336),  suc 
cessfully,  encroachments  by  the  military  power  upon  the  civil. 


4io  American  Debate  [1860- 

crisis  to  a  Committee  of  Thirteen,  to  report  a  plan  for 
averting  disunion.  He  suggested  that  this  plan  should 
recommend  legislation  of  the  kind  indicated  by  the 
President,  guaranteeing  no  interference  with  slavery, 
and  said  that,  while  this  might  not  restore  harmony  to 
the  country,  it  would  show  good  feeling  of  the  States 
in  the  Union  toward  those  out  of  it,  and  so  prepare  for 
friendly  relations. 

Various  amendments  to  the  proposal  were  made. 
Milton  S.  Latham  [Cal.],1  taking  advantage  of  the 
crisis  in  behalf  of  his  State,  urged  the  building  of  the 
Pacific  railroad  as  a  means  of  insuring  the  loyalty  of 
the  Pacific  coast.  This  was  later  made  a  part  of  the 
Republican  program,  passing  the  Republican  House, 
though  defeated  in  the  Democratic  Senate. 

The  committee  was  appointed,  but  it  was  unable  to 
agree  on  a  plan,  so  reporting  on  December  31.  In  the 
meantime  the  proposition  was  extensively  debated  in 
both  the  Senate  and  the  House.2  Upon  the  report, 
Senator  Judah  P.  Benjamin  [La.]  moved  a  dissolution  of 
the  committee,  saying  that,  owing  to  the  irreconcilable 
difference  of  opinion  between  the  sections  on  the  con 
stitutional  relation  of  the  States  to  the  Federal  govern 
ment,  it  would  be  impossible  to  form  any  plan  of 
conciliation. 

Sketch  of  Benjamin.  Judah  Philip  Benjamin  was 
esteemed  to  be  the  greatest  constitutional  lawyer  on  the 
Southern  side.  His  parents  were  English  Jews  who 
emigrated  to  America,  the  son  being  born  in  1811  while 

1  Latham  was  admitted  to  the  bar  in  1848;  was  a  member  of  Congress 
1853-55;  Governor  of  California  three  days  in  1860,  resigning  to  accept 
election  to  the  Senate  where  he  served  until  1863. 

2  For  an  extensive  report  of  the  Senate  debate  see  Great  Debates  in 
American  History,  vol.  v.,  pp.  324-380. 


1861]  Secession  411 

on  the  way.  Benjamin's  boyhood  was  spent  in  Wil 
mington,  N.  C.  He  was  three  years  at  Yale,  leaving 
before  graduation  to  study  law  in  New  Orleans,  where 
he  was  admitted  to  the  bar  in  1832.  He  soon  arose  to 
the  head  of  his  profession  in  the  State,  in  1840  becoming 
associated  with  John  Slidell,  afterwards  his  colleague 
in  the  Senate,  in  a  law  firm.  Much  of  his  business  was 
with  the  Supreme  Court  at  Washington.  Elected  as  a 
Whig  to  the  Senate  in  1852,  he  nevertheless  supported 
Senator  Douglas  on  the  Popular  Sovereignty  issue  until 
the  promulgation  of  the  Dred  Scott  Decision,  which  he 
accepted  as  conclusive,  and  thereafter  became  a  leader 
of  the  extreme  wing  (Southern)  of  the  Democratic  party, 
advocating  the  legal  right  of  slavery  with  such  vehe 
mence  that  Senator  Benjamin  F.  Wade  [O.]  called  him 
"a  Hebrew  with  Egyptian  principles." 

He  became  successively  Attorney-General,  Secretary 
of  War,  and  Secretary  of  State  in  the  Confederate 
government,  being  known  as  "the  brains  of  the  Con 
federacy."  At  the  end  of  the  war  he  escaped  to  Eng 
land,  where  he  supported  himself  by  journalism  while 
studying  English  law  and  acquiring  a  practice.  In 
1868  he  published  a  work,  which  has  become  standard, 
on  The  Law  of  Sale  of  Personal  Property,  and  this 
established  his  reputation  throughout  the  United  King 
dom,  bringing  him  a  highly  remunerative  practice,  and 
causing  his  appointment  in  1872  as  Queen's  Counsel. 
Owing  to  failing  health  he  retired  in  1883,  a  famous 
farewell  banquet  being  tendered  him  on  the  occasion  by 
the  British  bar.  He  died  in  Paris  in  the  next  year. 

In  the  great  debate  on  Conciliation  Senator  Benjamin 
discussed  the  constitutionality  of  secession,  presenting 
what  was  admittedly  the  best  argument  for  the  South 
ern  view.  He  was  opposed  by  Edward  D.  Baker  [Ore.] 


412  American  Debate  [1860- 

with  equally  clear-cut  legal  arguments,  thus  causing  the 
debate  to  be  the  greatest  upon  the  subject  in  American 
forensic  history,  being  so  fundamental  and  at  the  same 
time  so  comprehensive  that  the  arguments  of  the  other 
Senators  and  of  the  Representatives,  able  and  brilliant 
as  these  were,  as  well  as  representative  of  the  entire 
political  talent  of  the  country  (for  every  statesman  of 
any  prominence  took  part  in  the  discussion),  may  be 
omitted  in  the  present  history  of  American  controversy, 
limited  as  it  is  by  the  exigency  of  space. 

Sketch  of  Baker.  Edward  Dickenson  Baker  came 
to  Philadelphia  at  the  age  of  five  with  his  English 
parents.  His  parents  dying  a  few  years  afterwards, 
the  boy  supported  himself  and  his  younger  brother  by 
working  as  a  weaver.  He  occupied  his  leisure  hours 
in  study.  With  commendable  enterprise,  as  soon  as 
he  had  accumulated  sufficient  funds  he  removed  with 
his  brother  to  Springfield,  111.,  where  he  studied  law. 
Shortly  after  his  admission  to  the  bar  he  entered  politics 
as  a  Whig,  and  made  himself  a  leader  of  the  party  by  his 
remarkable  eloquence,  no  man  in  Illinois  approaching 
him  in  ready  oratory.  Because  of  this  facility,  Abra 
ham  Lincoln,  his  townsman,  whose  best  forensic  efforts 
at  that  time  were  the  result  of  careful  preparation, 
looked  up  to  him  with  admiring  regard. 

After  service  in  the  State  assembly  and  senate  Mr. 
Baker  was  sent  to  Congress  in  1844,  being  Lincoln's 
predecessor.  When  the  Mexican  war  began,  he  raised 
a  regiment,  and  fought  gallantly  in  every  action  on  the 
march  to  the  Mexican  capital.  When  General  James 
Shields  was  wounded  at  Cerro  Gordo,  he  took  command 
of  his  brigade,  and  led  it  throughout  the  rest  of  the  war. 
On  his  return  to  Illinois  Brigadier-General  Baker  settled 
at  Galena,  and  was  returned  to  Congress  in  1849.  In 


i86i]  Secession  413 

1850,  he  resigned  a  renomination,  and,  having  become 
interested  in  the  Panama  railroad,  went  to  San  Fran 
cisco,  where  he  became  at  once  the  leader  of  the  Cali 
fornia  bar,  and  achieved  the  fame  of  the  most  eloquent 
orator  in  the  new  State.  Removing  to  Oregon  he  was 
elected  to  the  Senate  in  1860  by  a  coalition  of  Repub 
licans  and  Douglas  Democrats,  his  colleague,  Joseph 
Lane,  an  ardent  champion  of  the  South,  being  elected 
by  the  Administration  Democrats. 

When  Fort  Sumter  was  fired  upon,  Senator  Baker 
resigned  his  seat,  and,  going  to  New  York  City,  re 
cruited  there,  by  his  impassioned  eloquence  in  Union 
Square,  and  in  Philadelphia,  a  California  regiment.  He 
was  killed  at  the  first  engagement,  that  at  Ball's  Bluff, 
Va.,  October  21,  1861,  while  leading  a  desperate  charge. 

Baker's  fiery  spirit,  had  he  lived,  would  probably 
have  impaired  his  usefulness  as  a  general,  since  the  rash 
gallantry  that  was  effective  against  Mexicans  generally 
proved  disastrous  when  exhibited  against  the  high- 
spirited  and  capable  Americans  of  the  South.  But  his 
loss  to  the  statesmanship  of  the  country  is  deplorable 
in  every  respect,  being  the  greatest  occasioned  by  the 
war.  While  his  foreign  birth  excluded  him  from  the 
Presidency,  Baker's  unsurpassed  gift  of  eloquence  and 
his  magnetic  personality  would  have  certainly  placed 
him  on  equal  rank  with  Clay  and  Blaine  as  a  popular 
statesman,  and  his  profound  knowledge  of  constitutional 
law,  conjoined  with  these  gifts,  might  have  recorded  his 
name  in  American  history  by  the  side  of  Webster's. 

Senator  Benjamin  began  his  speech  by  answering 
arguments  presented  by  various  Northern  Senators. 

"  Gentlemen  deny  that  the  citizen  of  South  Carolina  is 
bound  to  obey  his  [State]  government.  To  this  I  reply,  in 


4H  American  Debate  [1860- 

the  language  of  Vattel,  that  it  is  a  principle  of  the  law  of 
nations  that  the  citizen  owes  obedience  to  the  command  of 
his  sovereign,  and  he  cannot  enter  into  the  question  whether 
the  sovereign's  order  is  lawful  or  unlawful  except  at  his 
peril." 

The  Senator  from  Illinois  [Mr.  Douglas]  says  there  will 
be  no  war,  nor  coercion  of  a  State — only  the  execution  of  the 
laws  against  individuals  in  South  Carolina.  But  there  is 
no  machinery  for  this.  Perhaps  you  will  remove  the  in 
dividual  elsewhere  for  trial.  The  Constitution  expressly 
forbids  this.  You  cannot  take  him  out  of  the  district  where 
he  committed  the  offense,  much  less  the  States. 

The  Senator  from  Ohio  [Mr.  Wade]1  says  the  United 
States  Government  will  execute  the  laws  to  collect  revenue 
by  blockading  the  South  Carolina  ports.  That  is,  you  will 
collect  revenue  by  stopping  all  revenue — a  most  amusing 
mode.  But  does  any  man  suppose  that  a  blockade  can 
exist  by  a  nation  at  peace  with  another  ?  Perhaps  you  mean 
an  embargo.  The  Constitution  forbids  you  to  lay  it  against 
one  port  alone ;  it  must  be  complete  throughout  the  Union. 

Gentlemen  argue  as  if  the  President  may  determine  when 
laws  are  not  obeyed,  and  force  obedience  by  the  sword 
without  the  interposition  of  courts  of  justice.  The  Sen 
ator  from  Tennessee  [Andrew  Johnson]2  cited  in  this  con 
nection  President  Washington's  suppression  of  the  Whiskey 
Insurrection.  Does  he  not  know  that  Washington  called 
forth  the  militia  of  Pennsylvania  and  other  States  upon  a 

1  Benjamin  Franklin  Wade,  an  Ohio  judge,  was  the  Senator  from  a 
strong  anti-slavery  district,  and  the  most  extreme  of  Northern  radicals 
in  advising  coercive  measures  against  the  South,  not  alone  at  this  time, 
but  after  the  war,  when  the  question  of  Reconstruction  came  forward. 
His  service  as  Senator  extended  from  1851  to  1869.     As  President  of 
the  Senate  in  Andrew  Johnson's  administration  he  would  have  become 
President  of  the  United  States  had  Johnson  been  successfully  impeached, 
and  the  Administration  party  contended  that  the  impeachment  was 
instituted  by  the  radicals  in  order  to  obtain  the  control  of  the  execu 
tive  department,  as  they  already  held  that  of  Congress. 

2  The  sketch  of  Johnson  is  deferred  to  Volume  II.,  Chapter  II. 


i86i]  Secession  4J5 

requisition  by  a  judge  of  the  Supreme  Court  of  the  United 
States  certifying  that  the  marshal  was  unable  to  carry  out 
the  judgment  of  the  court  ? 

Reverting  to  Senator  Douglas's  contention,  Senator 
Benjamin  showed  the  impracticability  of  collecting  the 
customs  by  coercion  of  individuals,  by  telling  in  detail 
the  legal  obstructions  which  might  be  offered,  with  the 
result  that  the  entire  machinery  of  collection  and  the 
whole  warehouse  system  would  be  broken  up  in  every 
port  in  the  country. 

"The  whole  fancy  that  you  can  treat  the  act  of  a  sovereign 
State,  issued  in  an  authoritative  form,  and  issued  in  her 
collective  capacity  as  a  State,  as  being  utterly  out  of  exist 
ence;  that  you  can  treat  the  State  as  still  belonging  collec 
tively  to  the  Confederacy  [Union],  and  that  you  can  proceed, 
without  a  solitary  Federal  officer  in  the  State,  to  enforce 
your  laws  against  private  individuals,  is  as  vain  .  .  .  and 
delusive  as  any  dream  that  ever  entered  into  the  head  of 
man.  The  thing  cannot  be  done.  It  is  asserted  only  to 
cover  up  the  true  question :  .  .  .  you  must  acknowledge  the 
independence  of  the  seceding  State,  or  reduce  her  to  sub 
jection  by  war." 

Senator  Benjamin  then  proceeded  to  justify  secession 
as  a  constitutional  right  on  the  ground  of  previous 
violations  by  the  Northern  States  of  the  compact  of 
Union. 

You,  Senators  of  the  Republican  party,  deny  that  our 
slaves,  of  a  value  of  $4,000,000,000.,  are  property,  at  all,  and 
so  encourage  the  robbery  of  this  property  by  legislating  in 
the  Northern  States  so  as  to  render  its  recovery  as  difficult 
as  possible.  You  hold  us  up  to  the  ban  of  mankind,  in 
speech,  writing,  and  print,  as  thieves,  murderers,  criminals 


4i 6  American  Debate  [1860- 

of  the  blackest  dye,  because  we  continue  to  own  property 
which  we  owned  at  the  time  we  and  you  signed  the  com 
pact.  You  say  it  is  right  that  we  shall  spend  our  treasure 
in  the  purchase,  or  blood  in  the  conquest,  of  foreign  terri 
tory,  but  that  we  shall  not  enter  it  with  this  property.  You 
surround  us  with  a  cordon  of  hostile  communities  to  confine, 
in  dense  masses  and  within  restricted  limits,  our  population, 
and  thereby  force  us,  if  we  would  spread  beyond  the  bounds, 
to  sacrifice  property  nearly  sufficient  in  value  to  pay  the 
public  debt  of  all  Europe. 

You  do  not  propose,  you  say,  to  meddle  with  our  States, 
and  ask  of  what  do  we  then  complain  ?  That  is,  you  do  not 
propose  to  fell  the  tree — you  promised  not — but  to  girdle  it, 
so  that  it  dies.  And,  when  we  say  that  we  did  not  under 
stand  our  bargain  in  this  way,  that  your  acting  upon  it 
in  this  spirit  releases  us  from  the  obligations  which  accom 
pany  it,  that  we  cannot  live  together  under  your  interpreta 
tion  of  the  compact,  and  so  desire  to  depart  from  you  in 
peace,  we  are  answered  by  your  leading  spokesman  [Mr. 
Wade]:  "Oh,  no;  you  cannot  do  that;  we  have  no  objection 
to  it  personally,  but  we  are  bound  by  our  oaths;  if  you 
attempt  it  your  people  will  be  hanged  for  treason. "  That 
is,  you  can  find  no  warrant  in  the  Constitution  to  give  us 
the  benefits  of  Union,  but  your  oaths  force  you  to  tax  us — 
your  consciences  will  be  sorely  troubled  if  you  do  not  take 
our  money ! 

Anticipating  the  secession  of  his  State,  the  Senator 
from  Louisiana  in  dignified  terms  made  a  parting  appeal 
to  the  North  not  to  attempt  to  bring  back  the  South 
into  the  Union  by  force. 

"If,  however,  the  appeal  shall  prove  vain,  if  you  are 
resolved  to  pervert  the  government  framed  by  our  fathers 
for  the  protection  of  our  rights  into  an  instrument  for  sub 
jugating  and  enslaving  us,  then,  appealing  to  the  Supreme 
Judge  of  the  universe  for  the  rectitude  of  our  intentions,  we 


i86i]  Secession  417 

must  meet  the  issue  that  you  force  upon  us  as  best  becomes 
freemen  defending  all  that  is  dear  to  man. " 

Senator  Baker  began  his  reply  by  complimenting 
the  speech  of  the  Senator  from  Louisiana  as  the  ablest 
of  the  long  debate,  and  the  one  most  respectful  in 
manner  and  elevated  in  tone.  Yet  he  could  not  refrain 
from  saying  that  it  reminded  him  of  Dr.  Samuel  John 
son's  criticism  of  a  book:  "Sir,  the  fellow  who  has 
written  that  has  done  very  well  what  nobody  ought 
ever  to  do  at  all." 

The  object  of  the  philosophical  and  constitutional  dis 
quisition,  he  said,  was  to  prove  that  the  government  of  the 
United  States  was,  in  fact,  no  government  at  all — with  no 
principle  of  vitality,  to  be  overturned  by  a  touch,  dwindled 
by  a  doubt,  dissolved  by  a  breath;  not  by  maladministra 
tion  only,  but  in  consequence  of  organic  defects. 

"In  the  judgment  of  the  honorable  Senator,  the  Union 
is  this  day  dissolved;  civil  war  is  a  consequence  at  once 
necessary  and  inevitable.  Standing  in  the  Senate  Chamber 
he  speaks  like  a  prophet  of  woe — 'Too  late!  too  late!' 
Yet,  sir,  the  gleaming  and  lurid  lights  of  war  flash  round 
his  brow,  and,  if  it  were  not  for  the  exquisite  amenity  of  his 
tone  and  manner,  we  could  easily  persuade  ourselves  that 
we  saw  the  flashing  of  the  armor  of  the  soldier  beneath  the 
robe  of  the  Senator. 

"My  purpose  is  far  different;  sir,  I  think  it  is  far  higher. 
I  desire  to  contribute  my  poor  argument  to  maintain  the 
dignity,  the  honor,  of  the  government  under  which  I  live 
and  beneath  whose  august  shadow  I  hope  to  die.  I  propose 
to  show  that  it  is  in  very  deed  a  real,  substantial  power, 
ordained  by  the  people,  not  dependent  upon  States;  sover 
eign  in  its  sphere;  a  union,  and  not  a  compact  between 
sovereign  States;  that,  according  to  its  true  theory,  it  has 
the  inherent  capacity  of  self -protection;  that  its  Constitu- 

27 


American  Debate  [1860- 

tion  is  a  perpetuity,  beneficent,  unfailing,  grand;  and  that 
its  powers  are  equally  capable  against  domestic  treason 
and  against  foreign  foes." 

Senator  Baker,  stating  that  Senator  Benjamin's  "  com 
pact  theory"  of  the  Constitution  was  that  of  Calhoun, 
repeated  the  arguments  of  J.  Q.  Adams,  Webster,  and 
Jackson  against  it. 

Adams  said  that  the  people  were  sovereign,  and  the  State 
and  Federal  governments  its  creations,  each  sovereign  for 
its  limited  purpose.  Webster  observed  that  there  can  be  in 
this  country  no  sovereignty  in  the  European  sense,  which 
is  a  feudal  idea;  and,  therefore,  that  all  assumptions  arising 
out  of  such  a  proposition,  such  as  the  supremacy  of  a  State 
over  its  citizens  as  liegemen,  were  fallacies. 

If  the  people  were  then  sovereign,  the  ordainers  of  the 
Constitution  as  that  instrument  expressly  states,  then  it 
was  they,  and  not  the  States,  who  reserved  to  the  States 
the  functions  of  sovereignty  not  given  to  the  Federal 
government. 

Having  opposed  the  constitutional  right  of  secession, 
the  speaker  then  denied  that  the  grievances  com 
plained  of  by  the  South  were  of  a  nature  to  justify  seces 
sion  on  revolutionary  grounds.  The  grievances  could 
be  adjudicated. 

Does  not  the  honorable  Senator  remember  that,  although 
he  may  have  one  construction  of  the  Constitution,  and  I 
another,  there  is  between  us  a  supreme  arbiter,  and  that 
upon  every  conceivable  clause  about  which  we  may  differ, 
or  have  differed,  that  arbiter  has  always  decided  on  the 
Southern  side? 

Here  the  speaker  mentioned  the  two  principles  of  the 
Dred  Scott  decision  of  the  Supreme  Court,  the  return 


1861]  Secession  419 

of  fugitive  slaves,  and  the  admission  of  slavery  into  the 
Territories.  In  respect  to  the  latter  he  referred  to  the 
arrangement  assented  to  by  the  South  in  the  Missouri 
Compromise  not  to  take  their  slaves  into  certain 
Territories,  and  asked  Senator  Benjamin  if  that  was  not 
an  admission  of  the  constitutional  right  of  Congress  to 
"draw  the  cordon"  around  slavery  in  the  States  where 
it  existed. 

The  Senator  from  Louisiana  replied  that  the  agree 
ment  by  the  South  was  merely  not  to  insist  on  its 
constitutional  right. 

Senator  Baker  pertinently  answered  that  the  South 
then  had  no  authority  under  its  view  of  the  Constitu 
tion  to  make  such  an  agreement,  and  illustrated  the 
position  of  Senator  Benjamin  by  a  story  of  Boiling 
Green,  a  justice  of  the  peace  near  Springfield,  111., 
who  had  asked  the  opinion  of  Baker,  then  a  young 
lawyer,  upon  his  (Green 's)  jurisdiction  in  a  certain 
matter.  Baker  replied  that  he  could  not  do  the  action 
in  question,  as  this  would  be  illegal.  Green  retorted: 
"I  know,  I  can;  for,  by  Heaven,  I  have  done  it!"  So 
the  Southerners  said  of  the  Missouri  Compromise: 

"Theoretically  we  have  not  the  power;  constitutionally 
we  have  not  the  power;  but,  by  Heaven,  we  have  done  it!" 

Senator  Baker  then  denied  what  he  understood  to  be 
a  complaint  of  Senator  Benjamin  that  Congress  inter 
fered  with  slavery  in  the  States.  Benjamin  replied  that 
not  Congress,  but  the  States  interfered.  Baker  then 
asked  that  this  exoneration  of  Congress  from  the  charge 
of  unconstitutional  action  be  put  on  record,  as  removing 
a  valid  justification  for  secession. 

But  he  further  denied  that  any  action  by  a  State 


420  American  Debate  [1860- 

could  interfere  with  slavery  in  another  State.  How 
could  Illinois  frame  a  bill  against  it  in  Virginia?  Ben 
jamin  replied  that  Northern  States  interfered  with 
slavery  in  Virginia,  if  not  by  bill,  by  acts,  and  cited 
John  Brown's  raid,  which  was  endorsed  by  the  people 
of  Massachusetts  in  electing  to  the  governorship  John 
A.  Andrew,  who  had  publicly  approved  the  raid.  Baker 
replied  that  the  raid  and  its  approval  were  both  acts  of 
individuals,  and  therefore  did  not  present  a  case  of 
interference  with  slavery  by  constituted  government, 
either  national  or  State. 

"We  agree  now  that  Congress  never  interfered,  and  that 
States  never  can  interfere. 

"Now  as  to  interference  with  slavery  in  the  States  by  in 
dividuals.  There  are  people  in  Massachusetts  and  Illinois 
who  will  not  only  violate  the  rights  of  the  slave  States,  but 
the  rights  of  the  free — who  will  not  only  steal  niggers  but 
horses.  ...  It  is  the  duty  of  the  distinguished  Senator 
and  myself  sometimes  as  counsel  to  defend  such  men,  for 
they  are  not  confined  to  the  North.  I  apprehend,  if  a 
grateful  procession  of  the  knaves  and  rascals  who  are 
indebted  to  the  distinguished  Senator  from  Louisiana  for 
escape  from  the  penitentiary  and  the  halter  were  to  sur 
round  him  to-day,  it  would  be  difficult  for  even  admiring 
friends  to  get  near  him  to  congratulate  him  upon  the  success 
of  his  efforts  on  this  floor."  [Laughter.] 

Senator  Baker  then  stated  that  he  did  not  know  of  one 
Republican  who  proposed  to  interfere  with  slavery  in 
the  slave  States  by  legislation  or  force.  Senator 
Benjamin  admitted  that  the  Republicans  did  not  intend 
to  violate  the  letter  of  the  Constitution  to  this  end, 
but  that  it  was  their  desire  as  a  party  to  close  up  the 
slave  States  with  a  cordon  of  free  States,  in  order  to 


i86i]  Secession  421 

compel  emancipation.  He  also  said  that  Massachu 
setts  had  passed  a  "personal  liberty"  law  in  violation 
of  the  rights  of  slaveholders,  which  all  her  eminent 
lawyers  were  urging  her  to  repeal.  Baker  replied  to 
the  first  statement  by  saying  that  it  in  effect  withdrew 
the  charge  against  any  body  of  individuals  as  interfer 
ing  with  slavery  in  the  States,  and  to  the  second  by 
denying  the  need  of  precipitant  action  by  the  South 
since  united  legal  opinion  always  won  its  point  in  due 
time  in  changing  legislation  in  any  State. 

"The  South's  complaint  has  narrowed  itself  down  to  this: 
that,  as  a  people,  the  North  desires  to  circle  the  slave  States 
with  a  cordon  of  free  States,  and  thereby  destroy  the  in 
stitution  of  slavery;  to  treat  it  as  a  scorpion  girt  by  fire. 
Is  that,  I  ask  the  Senator,  a  ground  of  separation?" 

MR.     BENJAMIN:  "I  say,  yes;  decidedly." 

MR.  BAKER.  "And  I  say,  more  emphatically,  no!  It 
is  no  greater  crime  for  a  Massachusetts  man  to  circle,  to 
girdle,  and  thereby  to  kill  slavery,  than  for  a  Frenchman, 
an  Englishman,  or  a  Mexican.  It  is  as  much  a  cause  of 
war  against  France,  or  England,  or  Mexico,  as  against  us. " 

And  what  will  war  accomplish?  Slavery  is  circled  by 
destiny,  by  Providence,  and  by  human  opinion  everywhere. 
The  South's  contention,  if  it  is  to  have  any  force,  is  like  the 
wish  of  the  old  farmer  who  said  he  would  be  perfectly 
happy  if  he  only  had  all  the  land  that  joined  him.  It 
seems  to  me  that  the  Senator's  complaint  is  that  slavery 
does  not  extend  everywhere,  without  girdle  or  circle  in  the 
world.  Where  slavery  is  circled  it  is  by  the  elastic,  expan 
sive  economic  power  of  free  labor,  operating  in  spite  of  laws 
and  political  government. 

Does  the  Senator  ask  us  to  destroy  the  liberty  of  our 
press,  of  free  association  for  the  purpose  of  promoting 
abolition  or  any  other  cause?  There  are  abuses  connected 
with  these  institutions  which  affect  ourselves,  but  which, 


422  American  Debate  [1860- 

being  incident  to  free  government,  we  must  endure.  Will 
you  make  war  upon  us  because  we  cannot  alter  the  frame 
of  our  free  government  for  which  your  fathers  and  ours 
fought  side  by  side?  You  will  not  do  that. 

Now  as  to  territory.  I  will  not  yield  one  inch  to  secession, 
save  it  be  the  concession  of  Harold  of  England  to  the  in 
vader  Hardrada:  "We  will  allow  to  Hardrada  seven  feet 
of  English  ground,  and  if  he  be,  as  they  say,  a  giant,  some 
few  inches  more. " 

Sir,  in  that  spirit  I  speak.  I  will  agree  to  anything  which 
is  not  to  force  upon  me  the  necessity  of  protecting  slavery 
in  the  name  of  freedom. 

The  gentleman  asks,  "What  will  you  do  if  you  will  not 
recognize  the  independence  of  South  Carolina,  and  you  do 
not  make  war;  how  will  you  collect  your  revenue?"  And 
he  goes  on  to  show  very  conclusively,  to  his  own  mind, 
that  we  cannot.  He  says  if  we  attempt  it,  there  will  be  all 
sorts  of  legal  delays  interposed,  and  when  that  is  done  a 
great  government  will  be  kicked  out  of  existence  by  the 
tumultuous  and  vulgar  feet  of  a  mob — at  which  he  seems 
to  rejoice.  If  we  do  not  attempt  to  collect  the  revenue, 
he  says,  "Why  do  you  not  advance?"  much  in  the  vein  of 
the  fellow  in  London  Assurance  who  insults  Cool,  and  says, 
when  Cool  does  not  kick  him,  that  "he  is  a  low,  underbred 
fellow ;  he  cannot  afford  the  luxury  of  kicking  me ;  he  knows 
he  would  have  to  pay  for  it. " 

If  the  gentleman  wants  to  know  the  manner  in  which 
revenue  is  to  be  collected  near  the  sovereign  State  of  South 
Carolina  when  she  is  in  revolt,  I  will  show  him  what  General 
Jackson  ordered  to  be  done  when  South  Carolina  revolted 
once  before. 

There  is  nothing  practical  in  the  idea  that  we  cannot  com 
pel  an  individual  to  obey  the  law  because  a  sovereign  State 
will  undertake  to  punish  him.  The  Duke  of  York  [after 
wards  George  IV.]  was  both  commander-in-chief  of  the 
British  army  and  titular  Bishop  of  Osnaburgh,  a  German 
principality.  He  was  reminded  of  the  latter  fact  by  an 


i86i]  Secession  423 

aged  clergyman  who  reproved  him  for  profanity.  He 
replied:  "I  do  not  swear  as  the  Bishop  of  Osnaburgh,  but 
as  the  Duke  of  York,  the  commander-in-chief.  "Ah,  sir," 
said  the  old  man,  "when  the  Lord  shall  send  the  duke  to  hell 
what  will  become  of  the  bishop?" 

Now  if,  in  consequence  of  an  attempt  to  violate  the 
revenue  laws,  some  persons  should  be  hurt,  I  do  not  think 
that  it  will  better  their  condition  at  all  that  South  Carolina 
will  stand  as  a  stake  to  their  back.1 

On  January  3,  1861,  Senator  John  J.  Crittenden  [Ky.] 
presented  again,  with  additions,  a  plan  of  compromise 
which  he  had  submitted  on  December  18,  1860. 

Sketch  of  Crittenden.  John  Jordan  Crittenden  was 
the  most  revered  man  in  the  Senate,  being  seventy- three 
years  of  age.  He  was  graduated  from  William  and 
Mary  in  1807;  appointed  Attorney-General  of  Illinois 
Territory  in  1809;  fought  in  the  Second  War  with 

1  If  conclusiveness  be  the  main  object  of  forensic  argument  then  to 
this  speech  of  Senator  Baker  cannot  be  denied  preeminence  in  American 
debate,  for  no  other  deliverance  in  our  legislative  halls,  not  even  the 
majestic  oration  of  Webster  against  Hayne,  so  effectively  beat  down, 
one  by  one,  the  arguments  of  an  able  opponent,  extorting  from  him 
either  an  admission  of  their  untenability,  or  an  easily  answered  parry, 
and  so  thoroughly  built  up,  stone  upon  stone,  the  speaker's  own  position, 
establishing  it  as  a  strong  fortress  for  his  party  which  was  never  there 
after  successfully  assailed.  Unlike  Webster's  speech,  in  which  the  classic 
form  bordered  on  artificiality,  and  the  theme  was  academic  and  unsuited 
to  the  occasion,  Baker's,  which  began  in  much  the  same  manner,  soon 
developed  into  a  delightfully  free  yet  definitely  purposed  discussion  of 
the  burning  issue  of  the  day  as  presented  in  concrete  propositions 
which  were  either  before  the  Senate  or  which  the  speaker  called  forth 
by  tilts  with  his  opponent  in  the  course  of  the  debate.  Indeed,  Baker 
represents  in  this  speech  the  epochal  passing  of  the  old  "Columbian 
orator  "  into  the  modern  American  debater,  equally  facile  in  eloquence 
and  well-grounded  in  his  subject,  but  quicker  to  take  advantage  of  situa 
tions  which  arise  in  the  discussion,  and  even  to  create  these,  and  far 
more  zealous  to  achieve  victory  for  his  cause  than  a  Ciceronian  reputa 
tion  for  himself.  The  speech  is  a  model  for  debaters  of  the  present  day 


424  American  Debate  [1860- 

Great  Britain;  served  in  the  Kentucky  legislature  in 
1816;  in  the  United  States  Senate  1817-19.  He  en 
gaged  in  law  practice  in  Frankfort,  Ky.,  achieving  dis 
tinction  as  a  criminal  lawyer.  After  several  terms  in 
the  legislature,  he  was  appointed,  in  1827,  United  States 
District-Attorney,  but,  being  a  Whig,  was  removed  by 
President  Jackson  in  1829.  He  served  in  the  Senate 
again  from  1835  to  1841,  when  he  was  appointed 
Attorney-General  in  Harrison's  Cabinet.  He  retired 
with  most  of  his  colleagues  soon  after  Tyler  became 
President  and  abandoned  Whig  policies,  and  reentered 
the  Senate  in  1842.  In  1848  he  was  elected  Governor 
of  Kentucky,  resigning  to  become  Attorney-General 
in  Fillmore's  Administration.  In  this  capacity  he 
declared  the  constitutionality  of  the  Fugitive  Slave 
law.  He  was  elected  to  the  Senate  in  1855.  He  set 
himself  to  the  special  task  of  reconciling  the  North  and 
South,  divided  on  slavery.  At  the  close  of  his  sena 
torial  term  in  1861,  he  returned  to  Kentucky,  and  con 
tributed  much  by  his  efforts  to  keep  that  State  in  the 
Union.  He  then  entered  the  House  of  Representatives, 
where  he  supported  the  prosecution  of  the  war  solely 
to  suppress  secession,  opposing  enlistment  of  negro 
soldiers,  the  organization  of  the  State  of  West  Virginia, 
etc.  He  died  in  1863.  Senator  Thomas  Corwin  [O.] 
considered  Crittenden  the  ablest  debater  in  the  Senate. 
Senator  Crittenden 's  plan  of  compromise  in  1 860-61 

in  minor  respects  also:  courteous  and  even  complimentary  raillery  of  an 
opponent;  the  use  of  illustrative  anecdotes,  witty  or  otherwise  signifi 
cant  in  themselves,  and  apt  for  their  purpose;  and,  above  all,  the  appeal 
to  deep-seated  convictions  of  justice,  liberty,  and  humanity  in  the  hearts 
of  all  good  men.  Credit  must  also  be  given  to  the  honesty  of  Senator 
Benjamin,  remarkable  in  a  partisan,  in  conceding  the  force  of  points 
raised  against  him,  without  which  admission  the  triumph  of  Baker  would 
not  have  appeared  so  complete. 


Secession  425 

provided  for  various  amendments  to  the  Constitution, 
such  as: 

1.  Restoration  of  the  Missouri  Compromise. 

2.  That  Congress  have  no  power  to  abolish  slavery  in  the 
States  or  the  District  of  Columbia. 

3.  Transportation  of  slaves  from  one  State  to  another. 

4.  That  owners  of  fugitive  slaves  be  indemnified  where 
recovery  of  slaves  is  prevented  by  force. 

The  debate  now  was  concentrated  upon  this  plan. 
On  January  n,  Robert  M.  T.  Hunter  [Va.]  proposed 
even  more  drastic  constitutional  amendments. 

Sketch  of  Hunter.  Robert  Mercer  Taliaferro  Hunter 
was  educated  at  the  University  of  Virginia,  and  began 
law  practice  in  1830.  After  serving  in  the  Virginia 
legislature,  he  entered  Congress  in  1837  as  a  Democrat, 
and  in  1839  was  chosen  Speaker  of  the  House.  He  was 
defeated  in  1842,  but  reflected  in  1844,  and  in  1846 
was  chosen  Senator,  becoming  chairman  of  the  Finance 
Committee.  He  framed  the  Tariff  Act  of  1857.  He  was 
a  leading  advocate  of  Southern  rights.  In  1860  he  re 
ceived  the  next  highest  vote  to  Douglas  for  President 
at  the  Charleston  Democratic  convention. 

Taking  an  active  part  in  the  secession  movement  he 
was  expelled  from  the  Senate  in  July,  1861.  He  be 
came  Secretary  of  State  for  a  time  in  the  Confederacy, 
and,  later,  Senator.  In  February,  1865,  he  was  one  of 
the  Confederate  peace  commissioners,  whom  President 
Lincoln  refused  to  recognize.  He  was  arrested  at  the 
close  of  the  war,  but  pardoned  by  President  Johnson. 

Hunter's  "  conciliatory "  amendments  supplemented 
Crittenden's  by  preventing  the  abolition  of  slavery 
in  Federal  arsenals  and  dockyards  in  the  South;  by 
providing  that  Territories  on  admission  into  the  Union 


426  American  Debate  [1860- 

should  be  free  or  slave  States  as  the  inhabitants  should 
vote;  that  a  Southern  and  a  Northern  President  should 
alternate,  both  being  chosen  at  one  election,  and  the 
prospective  President  to  preside  over  the  Senate,  having 
veto  power  over  treaties  and  acts  of  Congress, x  that 
the  Supreme  Court  be  enlarged  to  ten  members  and 
be  equally  divided  between  North  and  South,  and  judge 
between  States  as  to  fulfilment  of  interstate  constitu 
tional  obligations,  enforcing  the  penalty  for  non- 
reparation  of  the  wrong  by  permitting  the  unoffending 
States  to  deny  privileges  to  the  citizens  of  the  offending 
ones,  and  to  tax  their  commerce. 

On  January  16,  the  Crittenden  resolutions  came  to 
a  vote.  A  substitute  offered  by  Daniel  Clark  [N.  H.], 2 
which  declared  that  the  Constitution  as  it  stood 
afforded  all  the  means  necessary  and  advisable  upon 
which  to  base  the  Union,  was  adopted  by  a  vote  of  25 
to  23,  thus  effectually  disposing  of  all  plans  of  concilia 
tion  by  constitutional  amendment,  the  House  taking 
similar  action. 

Farewell  Addresses  of  Southern  Senators.  As  soon 
as  their  respective  States  passed  ordinances  of  secession, 
Senators  and  Representatives  resigned  their  positions. 
The  former  made  farewell  speeches,  all  of  which  are 
memorable  for  the  spirit  of  conviction  which  informed 
them,  and  most  of  them  for  their  dignified  eloquence. 
The  Senators  repeated  the  familiar  arguments  for  seces 
sion.  One  passage  of  Jefferson  Davis 's  speech,  how- 


1 A  proposition  of  Calhoun. 

1  Clark  was  admitted  to  the  bar  in  1837;  after  service  in  the  State 
legislature,  he  was  elected  to  the  United  States  Senate  in  1857.  In 
1866  he  was  appointed  United  States  District  Judge.  He  was  an  ardent 
anti-slavery  man  before  the  war,  a  supporter  of  the  Lincoln  Administra 
tion  during  it,  and  a  radical  Republican  thereafter. 


i86i]  Secession  427 

ever,  should  be  presented  for  the  distinction  he  drew 
between  nullification  and  secession. 

"Nullification  and  secession,  so  often  confounded,  are 
antagonistic  principles.  Nullification  is  a  remedy  which 
it  is  sought  to  apply  within  the  Union  and  against  the  agent 
of  the  States  [the  Federal  government].  It  is  only  to  be 
justified  when  the  agent  has  violated  his  constitutional 
obligation,  and  a  State,  assuming  to  judge  for  itself,  denies 
the  right  of  the  agent  thus  to  act,  and  appeals  to  the  other 
States  of  the  Union  for  a  decision;  but  when  the  States 
themselves,  and  when  the  people  of  the  States,  have  so 
acted  as  to  convince  us  that  they  will  not  regard  our  con 
stitutional  rights,  then,  and  then  for  the  first  time,  arises 
the  doctrine  of  secession  in  its  practical  application." 

Acts  of  the  Secessionists.  About  the  middle  of 
December,  1860,  President  Buchanan  had  sent  to 
Charleston  Caleb  Cushing  [Mass.],  who,  as  a  renegade 
to  the  anti-slavery  cause  (he  had  been  John  Quincy 
Adams's  chief  supporter  in  the  Right  of  Petition,  yet 
now  was  strenuous  in'defense  of  the  Dred  Scott  Decision, 
the  Fugitive  Slave  Act,  etc.),  was  likely  to  be  persona 
grata  to  the  secessionists,  to  arrange  that  affairs  should 
remain  in  statu  quo  during  the  remaining  ten  weeks  of 
the  Administration.  Mr.  Cushing  returned  almost  at 
once,  with  the  report  that  the  secession  leaders  would 
make  no  promises  except  upon  the  unconditional  recog 
nition  of  the  independence  of  South  Carolina. 

On  December  26,  Robert  W.  Barnwell,  James  L. 
Orr,  and  ex-Governor  James  H.  Adams,  the  commission 
from  South  Carolina  to  negotiate  a  cession  to  the  State 
of  the  Federal  property  there,  arrived  at  Washington. 
The  President  informed  them  that  he  could  meet  them 
only  as  citizens  of  the  United  States,  and  they  returned 


428  American  Debate  [1860- 

South  after  writing  him  letters  which,  says  Horace 
Greeley  in  his  The  American  Conflict,  "are  scarcely 
average  samples  of  diplomatic  suavity." 

The  most  important  Federal  property  in  South 
Carolina  consisted  of  forts  in  and  around  Charleston 
harbor  on  islands  and  sites  ceded  by  the  State  to  the 
United  States.  These  forts  were  garrisoned  by  a  small 
force  of  Federal  troops  under  Major  Robert  Anderson, 
a  Kentuckian  who  had  been  recently  sent  there  to  re 
place  a  Northern  officer,  in  order  to  remove  a  possible 
cause  of  irritation  in  a  high-strung  community  which 
was  as  yet  only  contemplating  secession.  Secretary 
Floyd,  either  in  furtherance  of  this  policy,  or,  as  charged 
by  the  North,  in  conspiracy  with  the  secessionists  to 
make  the  seizure  of  the  troops  an  easy  matter  to  ac 
complish,  had  also  promised  that  no  changes  would  be 
made  in  the  garrison.  Accordingly  the  secessionists 
were  greatly  incensed  when  on  the  night  of  December 
26,  after  affairs  had  assumed  a  menacing  aspect, 
Major  Anderson  removed  his  troops  from  their  old 
station  in  Fort  Moultrie,  an  ancient  and  weak  fortifica 
tion  near  the  city,  to  Fort  Sumter,  stronger  and  more 
securely  situated  on  an  island  in  the  harbor.  On  De 
cember  29,  the  Charleston  Courier  said: 

"Major  Robert  Anderson,  United  States  Army,  has 
achieved  the  unenviable  distinction  of  opening  civil  war 
between  American  citizens  by  an  act  of  gross  breach  of 
faith." 

Shortly  after  this  the  Federal  arsenal  in  Charleston 
was  seized  by  volunteers  who  were  flocking  to  the  city 
at  the  call  of  the  State  government.  The  custom 
house,  post-office,  and  lighthouse  service  were  also 


i86i]  Secession  429 

appropriated  without  resistance,  those  in  charge  being 
ardent  secessionists.  The  harbor  lights  were  extin 
guished,  and  the  buoys  marking  the  channels  were 
removed  in  order  to  obstruct  provisioning  or  reenforc- 
ing  Fort  Sumter  by  ships  from  the  North. 

Secretary  Floyd  asked  President  Buchanan  to  order 
Major  Anderson  back  to  Fort  Moultrie,  and,  on  the 
President's  refusal  to  do  so,  resigned  his  office  on 
December  29;  Joseph  Holt  [Ky.]  was  appointed  in  his 
stead.  Floyd  had,  however,  already  rendered  the 
secessionists  all  the  help  in  his  power  by  transferring 
arms,  especially  heavy  ordnance,  from  Northern  to 
Southern  and  Far  Western  arsenals,  until  stopped  by 
the  President  on  protest  from  citizens  of  Pittsburgh, 
near  which  city  was  situated  the  Alleghany  Arsenal 
which  Floyd  was  about  to  deplete.  The  Secretary's 
resignation  was  also  hastened  by  an  investigation  into 
a  defalcation  in  the  Interior  Department,  in  which  his 
own  department  was  involved.  This  had  come  to 
light  on  December  24  during  the  absence  of  the  Secre 
tary  of  the  Interior,  Jacob  Thompson  [Miss.],  who, 
with  the  permission  of  the  President,  had  left  his  post 
to  visit  North  Carolina  in  the  capacity  of  a  secession 
commissioner  from  his  State.  It  was  found  that  a  clerk 
in  the  Interior  Department  had  hypothecated  $870,000. 
in  bonds  held  in  trust  for  the  Indian  Bureau,  in  order 
to  take  up  Secretary  Floyd's  acceptance  of  drafts  on 
the  empty  Treasury  by  a  contracting  firm  engaged  in 
the  transportation  of  army  supplies,  the  firm  having 
demanded  payment  in  advance.  On  December  30, 
the  grand  jury  at  Washington  indicted  ex-Secretary 
Floyd  for  malfeasance,  and  for  conspiracy  to  defraud 
the  government.  He  was,  however,  safely  beyond  the 
power  of  the  Federal  authorities,  being  engaged  in  the 


43°  American  Debate  [1860- 

agitation  to  take  his  State  of  Virginia  out  of  the  Union. r 
Secretary  Thompson  resigned  his  office  on  January  8, 
1861. 

On  January  9,  the  steamer  Star  of  the  West,  bringing 
reinforcements  and  supplies  to  Fort  Sumter,  was  fired 
on  by  the  secessionists  from  Fort  Moultrie  and  a  battery 
on  Morris  Island.  Being  struck  by  a  shot  she  returned 
to  New  York.  On  January  14  the  South  Carolina 
legislature  resolved  that  "any  attempt  by  the  Federal 
government  to  reenforce  Fort  Sumter  will  be  regarded 
as  an  act  of  open  hostility,  and  a  declaration  of  war." 
Colonel  Isaac  W.  Hayne,  as  agent  of  Governor  Francis 
W.  Pickens  of  South  Carolina  at  Washington,  on  Jan 
uary  1 6  demanded  of  the  Federal  government  the 
surrender  of  Fort  Sumter  as  a  pledge  of  non-interven 
tion  in  the  affairs  of  the  State.  This  was,  of  course, 
refused. 

:  Federal  forts  and  arsenals  were  seized  by  the 
State  authorities  in  Georgia,  Alabama,  Louisiana,  and 
North  Carolina  even  before  ordinances  of  secession  had 
been  passed  by  these  States.  Toward  the  end  of 
February  Brigadier-General  David  E.  Twiggs  [Ga.], 
commanding  the  Federal  military  department  of  Texas, 
turned  over  his  entire  army,  with  arms,  fortifications, 
etc.,  to  General  Ben  McCulloch,  representing  the 
authorities  of  Texas.  It  has  been  computed,  by 
Southern  as  well  as  Northern  historians  (e.  g.  Edward 
A.  Pollard  [Va.],  in  his  Southern  History  of  the  War, 
and  Horace  Greeley  [N.  Y.],  in  his  The  American 

1  Floyd,  however,  returned  and  faced  the  charges.  In  January,  1 861 , 
a  committee  of  the  House  of  Representatives  made  an  investigation 
and  completely  exonerated  him.  He  then  entered  the  Confederate 
army  as  brigadier-general.  He  was  relieved  from  command  by  Presi 
dent  Jefferson  Davis  for  his  part  in  the  surrender  of  Fort  Donelson, 
February  16,  1862. 


1861]  Secession  43 1 

Conflict),  that  the  South,  at  the  time  of  Lincoln's 
inauguration,  had  secured  the  possession  of  Federal 
property  to  the  value  of  $20,000,000,  including  150,000 
rifles  of  the  latest  patterns,  and  of  half  the  regular 
army. 

Organization  of  the  Confederacy.  On  February  4, 
1 86 1,  delegates  from  the  seven  seceded  States,  South 
Carolina,  Mississippi,  Florida,  Alabama,  Georgia, 
Louisiana,  and  Texas,  met  at  Montgomery,  Ala.,  and 
organized  "The  Confederate  States  of  America. "  The 
constitution  (adopted  on  the  I4th)  was  substantially 
the  same  as  the  Federal  Constitution  except  in  the 
following  particulars: 

1 .  President  and  Vice-President  to  be  chosen  for  six  years; 
President  ineligible  for  reelection  while  in  office;  he  may 
remove  Cabinet  officers  at  his  pleasure,  but  must  refer  other 
removals  to  the  Senate. 

2.  Heads  of  executive  departments  to  have  seats  in  either 
House,  with  privilege  of  discussing  matters  relating  to  their 
departments. 

3.  No  bounties  nor  duties  on  importations. 

4.  Right  of  property  in  slaves  not  to  be  impaired  by 
passing  through,  or  sojourning  in  another  State. 

5.  Fugitive  slaves  to  be  delivered  up  on  claim  of  owner. 

6.  Slavery  to  be  established  in  all  territory  to  be  acquired 
by  the  Confederacy. 

The  convention  elected  Jefferson  Davis  [Miss.] 
President,  and  Alexander  H.  Stephens  [Ga.]  Vice- 
President. 

Sketch  of  Stephens.  Alexander  Hamilton  Stephens 
was  left  an  orphan  at  the  age  of  fifteen  and  received 
an  education  at  Franklin  College  (now  the  University 
of  Georgia),  having  his  expenses  paid  by  a  Presbyterian 


432  American  Debate 

educational  society  on  the  understanding  that,  if  he 
decided  not  to  become  a  minister,  he  was  to  refund  the 
money.  He  was  graduated  with  the  first  honor,  and 
choosing  law  as  his  profession  taught  school  in  order  to 
clear  himself  of  his  indebtedness.  In  1834,  after  only 
two  months'  study,  he  was  admitted  to  the  bar,  being 
congratulated  by  the  two  eminent  jurists  in  charge  of 
the  admission  as  passing  the  best  examination  they  had 
ever  heard.  In  1836,  after  acquiring  a  good  law  prac 
tice,  he  was  elected  to  the  legislature  against  strong 
opposition,  because  he  had  opposed  Nullification.  In 
1843  he  was  elected  to  Congress  as  a  Whig  on  the 
" general-ticket"  system,  for  which,  on  taking  his  seat, 
he  moved  to  substitute  division  by  Congress  of  the 
State  into  congressional  districts — an  assertion  of  the 
right  of  the  Federal  government  to  interfere  in  State 
matters  in  order  to  regulate  its  own  organization,  which 
was  enacted.  When,  at  the  close  of  the  war,  he  was 
elected  to  the  United  States  Senate,  the  principle  of 
this  rule  was  successfully  urged  against  seating  him, 
Georgia  not  having  complied  with  the  terms  of  Congress 
laid  down  for  its  readmission  into  the  Union.  While 
in  Congress,  with  most  of  the  Whig  members,  including 
Abraham  Lincoln,  who  greatly  admired  him,  he  op 
posed  President  Polk  on  the  Mexican  war.  In  a  quarrel 
growing  out  of  the  matter,  although  of  feeble  frame,  he 
refused  to  retract  charges  he  had  made,  and,  when  his 
opponent  drew  a  knife  against  him,  grasped  the  blade, 
and  so  severely  cut  his  hand  that  he  never  again  wrote 
plainly.  For  a  time  he  made  his  speeches  seated  in  a 
chair.  While  still  regarding  the  Union  as  of  paramount 
importance,  he  was  an  earnest  advocate  of  the  exten 
sion  of  slavery  in  the  Territories,  opposing  in  1852  the 
Whig  candidate  for  President,  General  Scott,  for  his 


i86i]  Secession  433 

position  in  the  matter,  and  so  materially  contributing 
to  his  defeat  and  the  resultant  dissolution  of  the  party. 
He  carried  his  devotion  to  slavery  to  the  extreme  of 
claiming  that  the  economic  value  of  slave  labor  was 
greatly  superior  to  that  of  free  labor.  In  one  speech  on 
this  subject  he  challenged  comparison  of  Georgia  with 
Ohio,  and  met  with  overwhelming  defeat  at  the  hands  of 
a  Representative  from  that  State,  Lewis  D.  Campbell 
(afterwards  minister  to  Mexico),  who  convicted  him  of 
unpardonable  juggling  with  statistics,  such  as  omitting 
all  mention,  in  his  comparison  of  products,  of  the  Ohio 
hay  crop,  which,  though  a  minor  product  in  that  State, 
was  greater  in  value  than  the  premier  crop  of  Georgia, 
cotton.  In  1859,  foreseeing  a  " smash-up"  of  the  coun 
try,  he  retired  from  Congress,  and,  in  a  farewell  speech 
in  Augusta,  Georgia,  advocated  reopening  the  African 
slave-trade  in  order  to  get  more  negroes  to  take  to  the 
Territories,  and  so  increase  the  domain  of  slavery. 
When  secession  began  to  be  moved  in  his  State,  he 
stoutly  opposed  it,  but  was  won  over  to  its  acceptance 
by  the  proffer  of  the  Vice-Presidency  of  the  Confeder 
acy.  Within  one  year  thereafter  he  was  opposing  the 
conduct  of  the  war  by  President  Davis.  In  1864,  he 
headed  the  Georgia  peace  party,  and  in  1865,  the 
Confederate  peace  commission  to  the  United  States 
government.  At  the  close  of  the  war  he  was  confined 
for  five  months  as  a  prisoner  of  State  in  Fort  Warren, 
Boston,  and,  on  his  release,  entered  energetically  into 
promoting  the  reconstruction  of  the  States  lately  in  re 
bellion.  In  1867-70  he  published  a  book  on  the  origin 
and  conduct  of  the  Rebellion  called  The  War  between 
the  States.  He  also  supported  himself  by  teaching  a 
law  class.  He  lost  the  money  made  by  writing  and 
teaching  in  a  newspaper  venture.  In  1874  ne  was 

•8 


434  American  Debate  [1860- 

elected  to  Congress,  and  took  active  part  in  the  debates 
on  the  Tilden-Hayes  election  controversy,  advising 
acquiescence,  however,  in  the  seating  of  Mr.  Hayes. 
He  was  elected  Governor  of  Georgia  in  1882,  and  died 
in  the  following  year. 

No  man  in  American  politics  was  so  erratic  and  in 
consistent  as  Mr.  Stephens,  unless  it  was  John  Ran 
dolph.  It  is  hard  for  the  student  of  his  career  and  his 
speeches  to  understand  how  he  played  so  prominent 
a  part  in  our  history,  and  won  the  admiration  of  such 
men  as  Lincoln.  Certainly  his  wild  inaugural  address 
as  Vice-President  of  the  Confederacy,  compared  with 
that  of  President  Davis,  so  admirable  in  its  dignified 
reserve,  would  indicate  that  he  did  not  deserve  the 
reputation  accorded  him  by  his  generation. 

The  inaugural  ceremonies  took  place  at  Montgomery 
on  February  18,  1861.  In  his  address  President  Davis 
stated  that  he  expected  that  the  United  States  govern 
ment  would  decide  to  cultivate  peace  with  the  Southern 
Confederacy,  for  the  sake  of  cotton,  if  for  no  other 
reason.  Nevertheless,  there  was  an  undertone  in  the 
speech  which  indicated  that  this  was  not  his  real  belief : 

"We  have  entered  upon  a  career  of  independence,  and 
it  must  be  inflexibly  pursued  through  many  years  of 
controversy  with  our  late  associates  of  the  Northern 
States." 

Foreseeing  the  possibility  of  secession  of  States  in 
turn  from  the  new  government,  and  admitting  their 
right  so  to  depart,  he  spoke  of  the  necessity  of  preserving 
homogeneity  in  the  composition  and  interests  of  the 
new  nation,  and  to  this  end  advised  that,  if  any  States 
in  the  old  Union  sought  for  admission  into  the  new, 
they  should  not  be  received. 


i86i]  Secession  435 

Vice-President  Stephens  made  his  first  public  speech 
in  his  new  capacity  (virtually  his  inaugural  address), 
at  Savannah,  Georgia,  on  March  21.  In  this  he  declared 
that  the  new  Confederacy  was  founded  on  the  ideal 
labor  system  of  slavery,  and  so  not  only  would  endure 
but  set  an  example  which  all  the  world  would  in  time 
follow. 

"The  prevailing  ideas  entertained  by  Jefferson  and  most 
of  the  leading  statesmen  at  the  time  of  the  formation  of  the 
old  Constitution  were  that  the  enslavement  of  the  African 
was  in  violation  of  the  laws  of  nature;  that  it  was  wrong 
in  principle,  socially,  morally,  and  politically.  .  .  . 
These  ideas,  however,  were  fundamentally  wrong.  They 
rested  upon  the  assumption  of  the  equality  of  race.  This 
was  an  error.  It  was  a  sandy  foundation,  and  .  .  .  when 
the  storm  came,  and  the  wind  blew,  the  government  fell. 

' '  Our  new  government  is  founded  on  exactly  the  opposite 
ideas;  ...  its  corner-stone  rests  upon  the  great  truth 
that  the  negro  is  not  equal  to  the  white  man;  that  slavery, 
subordination  to  the  superior  race,  is  his  natural  and 
normal  condition.  This,  our  new  government,  is  the  first 
in  the  history  of  the  world  based  upon  this  great  physical, 
philosophical,  and  moral  truth." 

Mr.  Stephens,  accordingly,  prophesied  the  ultimate 
full  recognition  of  the  principle  of  slavery  "  throughout 
the  civilized  and  enlightened  world." 


INDEX 


This  index  has  been  made  exceptionally  full,  with  topical  classi 
fication  and  copious  cross-reference,  for  the  guidance  of  teachers  and 
students  of  American  history,  politics,  civics,  and  economics,  as  well 
as  of  rhetoric  (oratory  and  debate),  and  for  the  use  of  writers  upon 
these  subjects.  To  save  the  reader  recourse  to  the  dictionary  and  en 
cyclopaedia,  the  meaning  and  origin  of  political  terms  (e.g.,  "gerry 
mander"),  and  historical  and  biographical  data  of  subjects  and  persons 
are  supplied  in  cases  where  such  information  does  not  appear  in  the 
text. 

The  chief  abbreviations  employed  are:  b.  =  born,  d.  =  died,  et 
seq.  =  and  pages  following,  f.  n.  =  footnote;  the  meaning  of  other  ab 
breviations  used  will  be  evident  from  the  context. 


ABOLITION:  see  SLAVERY. 

ADAMS,  CHARLES  FRANCIS  IST  [Mass.]: 
b.  1807,  d.  1886;  min.  to  Gt.  Brit.; 
on  John  Adams,  143. 

ADAMS,  CHARLES  KENDALL:  b.  1835,  d. 
1902;  prof.  Mich.,  Wis.,  and  Cornell; 
ed.  of  British  Orations;  on  Chatham, 
43;  edits  speech  of  Mansfield,  50  f.  n.; 
on  Burke,  105. 

ADAMS,  JAMES  HOPKINS  [S.  C.]:  b.  1812, 
d.  1861;  gov.  1854-56;  comm'r  to 
Fed.  gov't.,  427. 

ADAMS,  JOHN  [Mass.]:  b.  1735,  d.  1826; 
second  Pres,  (1797-1801);  on  J. 
Otis,  n  et  seq.;  on  grad.  emancip., 
12;  scouts  non-import.,  33,  86;  essay 
on  Canon  and  Feudal  Law,  35,  37; 
liberal  in  relig.,  36  f.  n.;  against 
Stamp  Act,  38;  press  controv.  with 
Tory,  65;  tributes  to  S.  Adams,  65, 
66,  68;  as  a  debater,  67;  counsel  for 
Brit,  troops  in  Bost.  Massacre,  77; 
del.  to  Cong.,  85;  on  war  with  Gt. 
Brit,  as  inevit.,  95;  denies  knowl.  of 
Mecklenburg  Dec.  of  Ind.,  123;  his 
Thoughts  on  Gov't.,  127;  on  for. 
alliances,  131;  enunciates  prin.  of 
Mon.  Doct.,  132;  on  State  constitu 
tions,  133;  in  debate  on  Amer.  indep., 
141,  148,  156,  157;  tributes  to,  142 
et  seq.;  on  com.  to  draft  Dec.  of  Ind., 
150,  156;  death  of,  153,  160;  in  debate 
on  Art.  of  Confed.,  163,  168,  172; 


elect  V.  Pres.,  239  (•  n.;  elect.  Pres., 
266;  in  breach  with  France,  266  et  seq.; 
quarrel  with  Hamilton,  268;  em 
powered  to  deport  aliens  and  imprison 
their  harborers,  272,  273;  on  free 
speech,  281;  lese  majeste  of,  282; 
arraigned  by  Hamilton,  282;  appoints 
"midnight  judges,"  287;  discourtesy 
to  Pres.  Jefferson,  288;  for.  policy  of, 
307;  discourtesy  to,  by  J.  Randolph, 
312;  use  of  patronage  by,  317;  eulogy 
of,  by  Webster,  353;  on  Webster,  356. 

ADAMS,  JOHN  QUINCY  [Mass.]:  b.  1767, 
d.  1848;  Sen.  (1803-08),  diplomat,  Sec. 
of  State  (1817-20),  sixth  Pres.  (1821- 
25),  M.  C.  (1831-48);  for  sketch  see 
Vol.  II.;  secures  treaty  with  Gt. 
Brit.,  258;  Treaty  of  ^.Ghent,  265; 
admin,  of,  285;  elect.  Pres.,  314; 
arraignment  of,  by  J.  Randolph,  314; 
supports  Jefferson's  embargo,  323; 
memoir  of,  by  J.  Quincy,  3d,  337; 
inspires  Mon.  Doct.,  346;  on  tariff  of 
1828  and  nullif.,  349;  leader  of  Nat. 
Rep.  party,  354;  on  encroachments 
by  Cong,  on  States,  372;  opposes 
compact  theory  of  Const.,  418. 

ADAMS,  SAMUEL,  SR.  [Mass.]:  b.  1689, 
d.  1748;  politician;  invents  caucus,  63. 

ADAMS,  SAMUEL,  JR.  [Mass.]:  b.  1722, 
d.  1803;  opposes  Stamp  Act,  19,  38; 
opposes  repres.  of  Amer.  in  Par!.,  56; 
sketch  of,  63;  on  Amer.  civil  rights. 


437 


438 


Index 


Adams,  Samuel,  Jr. — Continued 

70;  drafts  "Appeal  to  the  World," 
73;  compels  remov.  troops  from  Bost., 
75  et  seq.;  on  intercol.  corresp.,  78; 
in  controv.  with  Gov.  Hutchinson  on 
Parl.  authority,  78  et  seq.;  proposes 
Cont.  Cong.,  85;  proscribed  by  Gt. 
Brit.,  86;  regards  war  with  Gt.  Brit. 
inevitable,  95;  chief  advocate  of 
Amer.  indep.,  141;  tribute  to,  by 
Choate,  144;  speech  on  Dec.  of  Ind., 
160;  on  com.  to  frame  Art.  of  Confed., 
163;  supports  ratif.  of  Const.,  231. 

ADDISON,  JOSEPH:  b.  1672,  d.  1719;  Eng. 
essayist,  chief  contrib.  to  Spectator; 
model  of  style  for  the  Fathers,  154. 

ADET,  M.:  Fr.  min.  to  U.  S.;  replaces 
Genet,  252;  presents  Fr.  colors  to 
U.  S.f  342  f.  n. 

AGRARIANISM:  in  Eng.,  215. 

AGRICULTURE:  services  to,  of  R.  R. 
Livingston,  Jr.,  145  f.  n.  See  COTTON; 
CIDER;  TOBACCO.  Cf.  LAND;  SEC 
TIONALISM;  SLAVERY;  TARIFF. 

ALABAMA:  slaye  State,  adm.  Union 
1819;  secession  of,  389,  393,  431; 
seizes  Fed.  forts,  430. 

ALASKA:  Russ.  Amer.,  345. 

ALBANY  PLAN  OF  UNION:  see  UNION. 

ALEXANDER  I.,  Czar  of  Russ.:  in  peace 
negot.  of  U.  S.  with  Gt.  Brit.,  258. 

ALIEN  LAWS:  controv.  over,  in  1798, 
269  et  seq.;  repealed,  272;  constitu 
tionality  of,  271,  273  et  seq.,  283  et  seq.; 
revived  by  Know-Nothings,  294; 
opposed  by  Clay,  326;  protest  against, 
effective,  373.  See  also  FOREIGN- 
BORN;  IMMIGRATION;  KY.  AND  VA. 
RES.;  KNOW-NOTHINGS;  NATURALIZA 
TION. 

ALLEN,  JOHN  [Ct.J:  b.  1763,  d.  1812; 
M.  C.  1797-99;  on  breach  with  France, 
266;  supports  Alien  Laws,  270; 
sketch  of,  270. 

ALLIANCES,  FOREIGN:  see  TREATIES. 

American  Debate,  present  work,  by 
Marion  Mills  Miller:  edit.  char,  of,  vii. 

A  merican  Orations,  by  Johnston  and 
Woodburn:  refer,  book,  viii. 

AMERICAN  PARTY:  see  KNOW-NOTHINGS. 

AMERICAN  PROTECTIVE  ASSOCIATION: 
nativist  organiz.,  291. 

AMERICAN  SYSTEM:  see  TARIFF. 

AMERICAN  WHIG  SOCIETY,  debating 
club  at  Princeton:  founded  by 
Madison,  17  f.  n. 

AMES,  FISHER  [Mass.]:  b.  1758,  d.  1808; 
M.  C.  1789-97;  supports  ratif.  of 
Const.,  228;  sketch  of,  228;  on  Jay's 
Treaty,  254. 

AMPHICTYONIC  COUNCIL:  see  GREECE. 

ANARCHISM:  see  INDIVIDUALISM. 

ANDERSON,  ROBERT  [Ky.]:  b.  1805,  d. 
1871;  U.  S.  maj.;  in  command  of  Ft. 
Sumter,  404,  428,  429. 

ANDREW,  JOHN  ALBION  [Mass.]:  b.  1818, 
d.  1867;  adm.  bar  1840;  counsel  in 
fug.  slave  cases  of  Burns  and  Sims; 
gov.  1861-66;  approves  John  Brown's 
raid,  420. 

ANDROS,  SIR  EDMUND  [Eng.]:  b.  1637, 


d.  1714;  gov.  N.  Y.  1674-81;  gov. 
Dom.  of  New  Eng.  1686-89;  deposed: 
gov.  Va.  1692-98;  gov.  island  of 
Jersey  1704-06;  arbit.  rule  of,  214  f.  n. 

ANNAPOLIS,  MD.:  interstate  commerce 
conv.  at,  183. 

ANNE,  Queen  of  Gt.  Brit.:  offended  by 
Swift,  171  f.  n. 

ANNEXATION  OF  TERRITORY:  see  CUBA; 
FLORIDA-  LOUISIANA  PURCHASE; 
TEXAS;  WAR,  MEXICAN. 

ANTI-FEDERALISTS:  see  CONSTITUTION, 
U.  S.,  debates  on;  REPUBLICAN 
(DEMOCRATIC)  PARTY. 

Apple  ton's  Cyclopedia  of  American  Bi 
ography:  on  Jefferson,  151;  on  Gal- 
latin,  257;  on  Grundy,  382. 

ARGENTINE  REPUBLIC:  see  LATIN-AM 
ERICAN  REPUBLICS. 

ARGUMENTATION:  see  DEBATE. 

ARISTOCRACY:  Hamilton  supports,  in 
gov't.,  209;  of  Senate,  G.  Morris  on, 
in  Const.  Conv.,  223;  Fed.  party 
champion  of,  241,  242,  269;  in  foreign 
policy,  307.  See  also  CINCINNATI, 
SOCIETY  OF.  Cf.  DEMOCRACY. 

ARKANSAS:  adm.  into  Union,  1836;  post 
pones  secession,  392;  secedes  May  6, 
1861. 

ARMSTRONG,  JOHN,  GEN.:  b.  1758,  d. 
1843;  officer  in  Rev.;  M.  C.  for  Pa. 
1787-89;  Sen.  for  N.  Y.  1800-04; 
Sec.  of  War  1813-14;  min.  to  France, 
304. 

ARMY:  opposition  by  colonies  to  royal 
troops,  19,  24,  30,  58,  60,  61,  75  et  seq.; 
trial  of  soldiers  in  Boston  Massacre, 
77;  Cont.  Cong,  opposes  standing 
armies,  88;  Chatham  on  removal  of 
troops  from  Boston,  97,  98,  100; 
Franklin  on,  as  menace  to  liberty,  101; 
Va.  Bill  of  Rights  on  standing,  136; 
German  mercenaries  in  Rev.,  149; 
supply  of,  in  Rev.,  165;  medicine  in 
Rev.,  166;  control  of,  by  Congress, 
200,  210;  State  militia  vs.  Fed.  troops, 
215;  increase  of,  in  breach  with  France 
267;  France  supreme  on  land,  308; 
regular,  opposed  by  J.  Randolph, 
312,  320,  333,  335;  defended  by 
R.  M.  Johnson,  333;  standing,  de 
nounced  by  Chatham,  335;  S-  C. 
militia  resist  tariff,  368;  militia 
appointments  by  Fed.  Gov't  illegal, 
397;  admin,  of  War  Dep't  by  Jeff. 
Davis,  397;  interference  of,  with 
elections,  409  f.  n.;  encroachments  by 
military  power  on  civil,  409  f.  n.; 
negroes  in,  424;  Fed.,  in  Tex.,  deserts 
to  Confederacy,  430.  See  also 
COERCION;  CONSCRIPTION;  DEFENSE, 
NATIONAL;  FEDERAL  PROPERTY;  IN 
SURRECTION;  WAR. 

ARSENALS:  see  FEDERAL  PROPERTY. 

ARTICLES  OF  CONFEDERATION:  see 
CONFEDERATION. 

ASSOCIATIONS,  PATRIOTIC:  see  NON 
IMPORTATION;  SONS  OF  LIBERTY.  Cf. 
UNIONISM,  TRADE. 

ATTUCKS,  CRISPUS:  mulatto  killed  in 
Bost.  Massacre,  75. 


Index 


439 


BAKER,  EDWARD  D.,  COL.:  b.  1811,  d. 

1861;  M.  C.  [111.];  Sen.  [Ore.];  debates 
with  Benjamin  on  secession,  411,  417 
et  seq.;  sketch  of,  412. 

BANKING:  Parl.  forbids  certain  kinds  of, 
in  Amer.,  64;  Hutchinson  opposes 
land  bank,  72;  attitude  of  Clay  and 
Gallatin  toward  United  States  Bank, 
327;  Clay-Grundy  debate  on,  in 
Ky.,  381.  See  also  CLINTON,  GEORGE; 
FINANCE;  MASON,  JEREMIAH. 

BANKS,  NATHANIEL  P.  [Mass.]:  b.  1816, 
d.  1894;  M.C. ;  sketch  of,  294;  defends 
Know-Nothings,  294  et  seq. 

BARERE,  BERTRAND  [France],  the 
' '  Anacreon  of  the  Guillotine ' ' :  echoes 
Jefferson's  epigram  on  liberty,  181 
f.  n. 

BARNWELL,  ROBERT  W.  [S.  C.]:  b.  1801, 
d.  1882;  M.  C.  1829-33;  pres.  S.  C. 
Coll.  1835-41;  Sen.  1850-51;  S.  C. 
comm'r  to  Fed.  Gov't,  427. 

BARRE,  ISAAC,  COL.:  Eng.  M.  P.; 
sketch  of,  22;  opposes  Stamp  Act, 
23;  on  suprem.  Parl.,  47,  and  acts 
against  Boston,  82. 

BARRY,  WILLIAM  T.  S.  [Miss.]:  b.  1821, 
d.  1868;  M.  C.;  sketch  of,  292  f.  n.; 
arraigns  Know-Nothings,  292  et  seq. 

BASSI,  UGO,  Italian  revolutionist: 
suppressed  by  Cardinal  Bedini,  290. 

BAYARD,  JAMES  A.,  SR.  [Del.]:  b.  1767, 
d.  1815;  M.  C.  and  Sen.;  envoy  to 
Russia,  258;  supports  breach  with 
France,  263;  sketch  of,  264;  supports 
alien  laws,  272  et  seq.;  secures  Jeffer 
son's  elect,  as  Pres.,  287. 

BEAUREGARD,  PIERRE  G.  T.  [La.J:  b. 
1818,  d.  1893;  grad.  West  Point  1838; 
in  Mex.  War;  gen.  in  C.  S.  A.;  bom 
bards  Ft.  Sumter,  404. 

BEDINI,  CARDINAL  [Ital.j,  papal  nuncio: 
in  contrpv.  over  R.  C.  Church 
property  in  N.  Y.,  290. 

BELGIC  CONFEDERACY:  votes  by  states, 
171,  173. 

BELMONT,  AUGUST  [N.  Y.J:  b.  Germ. 
1816,  d.  1890;  banker;  resigns  as 
consul-gen,  of  Austria  to  U.  S.  in 
protest  against  treatment  of  Hungary ; 
U.  S.  min.  to  Hague  1853-56;  in 
Ostend  confer.,  296  f.  n. 

BENJAMIN,  JUDAH  P.  [La.]:  b.  1811,  d. 
1884;  Sen.;  sketch  of,  410;  in  debate 
with  Baker  on  secession,  410,  411, 
413,  419  et  seq. 

BENTON,  THOMAS  HART  [Mo.]:  b.  1782, 
d.  1858;  Sen.,  sketch  in  Vol.  II.; 
ed.  Debates  of  Congress,  iii. ;  on  Clay- 
Randolph  duel,  314;  on  Webster's 
Reply  to  Hayne,  375,  376. 

BERKELEY,  SIR  WILLIAM,  roy.  gov.  Va.: 
b.  1610,  d.  1677;  on  the  navig.  acts,  3. 

BERNARD,  SIR  FRANCIS,  roy.  gov.  Mass. : 
b.  1714,  d.  1779;  reports  alarm  in 
Mass,  over  "Molasses  Act,"  7;  de 
nounces  Stamp  Act  Cong.,  9;  misled 
by  J.  Otis  on  tea-tax,  10;  upholds 
Writs  of  Assist.,  15;  dissolves  Mass, 
assem.,  60;  ordered  to  report  on 


"treasons,"  62;  on  Sam  Adams,  67? 
in  contest  with  assembly,  70;  resigns. 
7i. 

BIBLE,  see  RELIGION. 

BIGELOW,  JOHN  [N.Y.j!  b.  1817,  d.  1911; 
ed.  N.  Y.  Evening  Post;  min.  to 
France,  1865-67;  N.  Y.  Sec.  State, 
1867-68;  author  lives  of  Frdmont 
and  Bryant,  and  ed.  Works  of  Frank 
lin;  on  Franklin,  49. 

BILLETING  ACT:  in  re  royal  troops,  60. 

BILL  OF  RIGHTS:  adopted  by  Cont. 
Cong.,  88;  in  Va.  Const.:  drafted  by 
Mason,  135  et  seq.;  in  U.  S.  Const., 
insisted  on,  by  various  States,  228, 
231,  235,  238;  championed  by  Rep. 
(Dem.)  party,  240. 

BLACK  HAWK  WAR:  see  WARS,  INDIAN. 

BLACK,  JEREMIAH  S.  [Pa.j:  b.  1810.  d. 
1883;  Atty.-Gen.  1857-60;  appointed 
Sec.  of  State,  394;  sketch  of,  395  f.  n.; 
opin.  on  coercion,  395. 

BLACKBURN,  COLIN,  BARON,  Brit, 
jurist:  on  Brit,  const.,  55 

BLACKSTONE,  SIR  WILLIAM:  b.  1723,  d. 
1780;  English  jurist;  author  of 
Commentaries  on  the  Laws  of  England; 
Jefferson  on,  152;  ref.  to,  by  Webster, 
368. 

BLAND,  RICHARD  [Va.j:  b.  1710,  d.  1776: 
educ.  at  William  and  Mary,  and 
Univ.  of  Edinburgh;  author  of  book 
on  colonial  rights,  35;  sketch  of,  36; 
opposes  Henry's  militant  resolutions, 
117;  on  slavery,  152. 

BLOCKADE:  by  Great  Brit,  and  Allies, 
319- 

BLOUNT,  WILLIAM  [Tenn.]:  b.  1749,  d. 
1800;  M.  C.  (N.  C.)  1783-84;  gov. 
Tenn.  Terr.  1790-96;  U.  S.  Sen.  1796- 
97;  impeachment  of,  265. 

BOARD  OF  TRADE,  BRITISH:  see  NAVI 
GATION  ACTS. 

BOLINGBROKE,     HENRY    ST.    JOHN,    VlS- 

COUNT,  Eng.  statesman  and  philoso 
pher:  b-  1678,  d.  1751;  Burke's  Vin 
dication  of  Nat.  Soc.  ascribed  to,  102. 

BOLIVAR,  SIMON:  general  and  statesman, 
b.  in  Venez.  1783,  d.  1830;  liberator 
of  South  America,  341. 

BOSTON,  MASS.:  Writs  of  Assistance 
tried  in,  8;  protests  against  Stamp 
Act,  19,  38;  rejoices  over  recall  of 
Gov.  Bernard,  71;  issues  "Appeal  to 
the  World,"  73;  Massacre,  65,  75, 
et  seq.;  Tea-Party,  81;  Port  Bill,  82, 
83;  Chatham  on  removal  of  troops 
from,  97;  Burke  proposes  repeal  of 
Port  Bill,  in;  recommends  Amer. 
indep.,  134;  evacuation  of,  149  f.  n.; 
mayoralty  estab.,  263.  See  also 
BUNKER  HILL;  FANEUILHALL;  GAGE. 

BOUNTIES:  prohibited  by  C.  S.  A.  const., 
431. 

BOWDOIN,  JAMES  [Mass.J:  b.  1727,  d. 
1790;  gov.  1785-86;  deleg.  to  Cont. 
Cong.,  85. 

BRECKINRIDGE,  JOHN  [Ky.j:  b.  1760,  d. 
1806;  Sen.  1801-05;  Atty.-Gen.,  1805- 
06;  imputed  author  Ky.  Res.,  283; 


440 


Index 


Breckinridge,  John — Continued 

Sen.  leader  in  re  La.  Purchase;  letter 
of  Jefferson  to,  303. 

BRIBERY:  P.  Randolph's  wish,  28;  by 
Walpole,  41;  judicial,  punishable, 
though  not  mentioned  in  Const.,  280. 

BRITISH  DEBTS:  see  WARE  vs.  HILTON. 

BROUGHAM,  HENRY,  LORD,  Eng.  states 
man:  on  Burke,  104. 

BROWN,  JOHN  [Kan.J:  b.  1800,  d.  1859; 
for  sketch  see  Vol.  II.;  his  raid  ref.  to, 
420. 

BRYANT,  WILLIAM  CULLEN  [N.  Y.],  poet 
and  editor  (N.  Y.  Evening  Post):  b. 
Mass.  1794,  d.  1878;  youthful  poem 
on  embargo,  322  f.  n. 

BUCHANAN,  JAMES  [Pa.],  isth  Pres.:  b. 
1791,  d.  1868;  for  sketch  see  Vol.  II.; 
min.  to  Gt.  Brit.,  in  Ostend  conf., 
296  f.  n.;  policy  as  Pres.  toward 
secession,  392  et  seq.;  message  on 
coercion  of  S.  C.,  398,  409;  sends 
Gushing  to  S.  C.,  427;  refuses  to 
receive  S.  C.  comm'rs,  427. 

BUNKER  HILL  MONUMENT:  Webster's 
speech  on,  353- 


BURGOYNE,  SIR  JOHN,  Eng.  general: 
surrenders  army  to  Americans,  Oct. 
17.  1777;  under  Howe,  149  f.  n. 

BURKE,  EDMUND,  Eng.  statesman:  b.  in 
Ireland,  1729,  d.  1797;  on  taxation 
of  Amer.,  555  on  Lord  North,  75 ; 
reprints  Jefferson's  intruct.  to  Va. 
del.  to  Cong.,  86;  sketch  of,  102;  his 
speech  "On  Conciliation  with  Amer.," 
102  et  seq.;  model  of  J.  Randolph, 
311;  compared  with  Webster,  356; 
on  spirit  of  liberty,  361;  comp.  with 
Hayne,  361. 

BURKE,  WILLIAM,  cousin  of  Edmund:  co 
author  with  him  of  book  on  Amer.,  102. 

BURR,  AARON  [N.  Y.]:  b.  1756,  d.  1836; 
for  his  trial  for  treason  see  Decisive 
Battles  of  the  Law,  by  Fred.  Trevor 
Hill,  Esq.,  chap,  ii.;  trial  ref.  to,  233. 
260;  contest  for  Pres.  with  Jefferson, 
265,  286. 

BURTON,  EDMUND,  Eng.  author:  on 
Mansfield,  52. 

BUTE,  JOHN  STUART,  EARL  OF,  British 
premier:  b.  Scot.  1713,  d.  1792;  ad 
min,  of,  17. 


CABINET:  see  PRESIDENT. 

CALDWELL,  CHARLES,  Amer.  physician 
and  historian:  b.  N.  C.,  1772,  d.,  Ky. 
1853;  on  Ames,  230. 

CALHOUN,  JOHN  C.  [S.  C.]:  b.  1781,  d. 
1850;  his  construct,  of  Va.  Res. 
opposed  by  Madison,  260;  introd. 
protect,  tariff  of  1816,  308,  365,  366; 
sketch  of,  329;  defends  War  of  1812, 
3345  Webster  on,  330;  comp.  with 
Hayne,  340,  375;  becomes  V.-Pres., 
349;  leader  of  nullif.  movement,  354; 
opposes  Force  Bill,  381  et  seq,;  his 
view  of  compact  theory  of  Const., 
418;  proposes  dual  Presidency,  426. 

CALIFORNIA:  adm.  Union,  1850;  carried 
by  Know-Nothings,  290. 

CAMDEN,  CHARLES  PRATT,  EARL  OF,  Brit, 
statesman:  b.  1714,  d.  1794;  sketch  of, 
50;  opposes  taxation  of  Amer.,  53. 

CAMPBELL,  GEORGE  W.  [Tenn.]:  b. 
1768,  d.  1848;  sketch  of,  320;  defends 
embargo,  320,  321. 

CAMPBELL,  JOHN  LORD,  Eng.  author: 
on  Camden,  51;  on  Mansfield,  55  f.  n. 

CAMPBELL,  LEWIS  DAVIS  [O.J:  b.  1811, 
d.  1882;  editor  Cincinnati  Gazette; 
lawyer;  Whig;  M.  C.  1849-59; 
chm.  Ways  and  Means  com.  1857- 
59;  col.  in  Union  army;  min.  to  Mex. 
1865-68;  M.  C.  1871-73;  upholds 
free  labor  in  debate  with  Stephens, 

CANADA:  address  by  Cont.  Cong,  to 
inhab.  Quebec,  94;  U.  S.  deter 
mined  on  its  free  gov't.,  101;  Franklin 
would  admit,  to  U.  S.,  162;  Tories 
flee  to  Nova  Scotia,  30;  invasion  of, 
opposed  by  Hart.  Conv.,  338,  and 
by  Webster,  352. 

CANNING,  GEORGE,  British  premier: 
inspires  2d  declar.  in  Mon.  Doct.,  347. 

CAPITAL  PUNISHMENT:  opposed  by  E. 
Livingston,  261. 


CARLYLE,  THOMAS,  British  author:  on 
Webster,  355. 

CARROLL,  CHARLES  [Md.]:  b.  1737,  d. 
1832;  signer  Dec.  of  Ind.;  advocates 
reduction  of  provin.  taxes,  36. 

CASS,  LEWIS  [Mich.l:  b.  1782,  d.  1866; 
for  sketch  see  Vol.  II.;  knifed  by 
Catholics  for  Pres.,  297;  resigns  as 
Sec.  of  State  in  protest  against  Pres. 
Buchanan's  course  toward  secession, 
394- 

CATHERINE  II.,  Czarina  of  Russia: 
"armed  neutrality"  formed  by,  250. 

CATHOLICS,  ROMAN:  polit.  infl.  of.  oppos. 
by  Know-Nothings,  289,  290,  293, 
296;  controv.  over  church  prop,  in 
N.  Y.,  290;  Amer.  Protec.  Assn., 
291;  principles  of  Inquisition  adopted 
by  Know-Nothings,  293;  Cass  knifed 
for  Pres.  by,  297. 

CAUCUS:  political,  in  vented  by  S.Adams, 
Sr.,  63;  develop,  of,  63  f.  n.;  Congres 
sional,  held  by  Sam  Adams,  69. 

CHARLES  I.,  King  of  Eng.:  encroaches  on 
civil  liberty,  37. 

CHARLES  II.,  King  of  Eng.:  navigation 
act  of,  2,  13,  14. 

CHARLESTON,  S.  C.:  surrender  of,  to 
British,  74;  reception  to  Genet,  244; 
Courier  on  Maj.  Anderson,  428.  See 
also  SECESSION;  SUMTER. 

CHARLESTOWN,  MASS.:  burned  by 
British,  129. 

CHARLOTTE,  N.  C.:  monument  in,  to 
signers  of  Mecklen.  Dec.  of  Ind., 
124. 

CHARTERS,  COLONIAL:  Mass,  upholds 
rights  under,  20;  Va.  does  the  same, 
26;  controversy  in  Mass,  over  charter 
rights,  78  et  seq.',  Mass,  deprived  of, 
82;  Cont.  Cong,  upholds  rights  of,  87; 
Atty.-Gen.  Thurlow  proposes  for 
feiture  of,  107;  James  Wilson  on,  115; 
restored  after  Andros,  214  f.  n. 


Index 


441 


CHASE,  SALMON  PORTLAND  [O.]:  b.  1808, 
d.  1873;  for  sketch  see  Vol.  II.;  anti- 
slavery  Sen.,  403. 

CHASE,  SAMUEL  [Md.J:  b.  1741,  d.  1811; 
tribute  to,  by  Choate,  144;  sketch  of, 
163;  in  debate  on  Art.  of  Confed., 
163,  168,  170;  Assoc.  Just.  Sup.  Ct.f 
impeached,  264,  313. 

CHATHAM,  WILLIAM  PITT,  EARL  OF, 
Brit,  statesman:  b.  1708,  d.  1778; 
ignores  navig.  acts,  6;  as  empire- 
builder,  7;  resigns  premiership,  1761, 
17;  on  Amer.  taxation,  19;  refuses  to 
act  with  Rockingham  adm.,  40; 
sketch  of,  41;  gives  nickname  to 
Grenville,  45;  comp.  with  Mansfield, 
52;  enters  Lords,  57,  58;  praises 
Cont.  Cong.,  89;  and  Dickinson, 
93;  on  removal  of  troops  from 
Boston,  97;  on  Amer.  war,  121,  122; 
contrasted  with  J.  Randolph  by 
Calhoun,  335;  on  a  standing  army, 
335;  comp.  with  Webster,  357;  with 
Hayne,  361. 

Chesapeake:  impressment  of  Amer. 
seamen  on,  319,  329. 

CHESNUT,  JAMES  [S.  C.]:  b.  1815,  d- 
1885;  sketch  of,  389  f.  n.;  on  Repub. 
fanaticism,  389;  expelled  from  Sen., 
39i  f.  n. 

CHESTER,  county  palatine  of  Eng.: 
Burke  on,  in. 

CHESTERFIELD,  PHILIP  DORMER  STAN 
HOPE,  EARL  OF,  English  statesman: 
on  weakness  of  Dutch  Rep.,  204; 
character  of,  233. 

CHEVES,  LANGDON  [S.  C.]:  b.  1776,  d. 
1857;  M.  C.  1809-15;  Speaker,  1814- 
15;  judge  super,  ct.  S.  C.  1816;  chm. 
comm'n  Treaty  of  Ghent,  1822; 
advocates  strong  navy,  331,  332. 

CHOATE,  RUFUS  [Mass.]:  b.  1799,  d. 
1859;  adm.  bar,  1823;  M.  C.  1831- 
34;  Sen.  1841-45;  tribute  by,  to  J. 
Adams  and  other  Rev.  orators,  144; 
on  Dec.  of  Ind.,  155. 

CHRISTIANITY:  see  RELIGION. 

CHURCH  OF  ENGLAND:  see  RELIGION. 

CIDER:  tax  on,  in  Gt.  Brit.,  17,  45. 

CINCINNATI,  SOCIETY  OF:  estab.  1783  by 
officers  of  Rev.  to  relieve  widows  and 
orphans  and  perpetuate  army  friend 
ships:  membership  hereditary;  op 
posed  by  people  for  exclusiveness, 
292. 

CITIZENSHIP,  AMERICAN:  two-fold 
nature  of,  214;  Banks  and  Gerry  on, 
297.  See  also  ALIEN  LAWS;  CIVIL 
RIGHTS;  FOREIGN-BORN;  NATURALI 
ZATION;  SOVEREIGNTY. 

Civics:  see  GOVERNMENT;  POLITICAL 
SCIENCE. 

CIVIL  RIGHTS:  Charles  I.  and  James  I. 
encroach  on  Amer.  liberties,  37; 
Mansfield  undermines,  53 ;  Sam  Adams 
on  American  rights,  70;  Hutchinson 
on,  79,  80;  Declaration  of,  by  Cong., 
87,  88;  Quebec  debarred  of,  94; 
Chatham  on  military  interference 
with,  98,  100;  Franklin  on,  101; 
Burke  on,  106  et  seq.,  361;  vassals  of 
free  states  most  enslaved,  171; 
Jefferson  on  liberty,  181;  preserva 
tion  of,  purpose  of  gov't,  214; 


Dem.  party  champion  of,  240; 
La  Fayette  attracted  by  Amer.  love  of 
liberty,  255;  French  and  Brit,  civil 
liberty  compared,  255;  should  not  be 
affected  by  religion,  294;  invasion  of, 
justified  by  self-preservation  of  state, 
318;  Henry  on  precedence  of  liberty 
over  Union,  378;  encroachments 
upon,  by  military  power,  409  f.  n.; 
gov't  abuses  to  be  borne  for  sake  of 
liberty,  421.  See  also  CITIZENSHIP; 
INDIANS;  PRESS;  RELIGION;  REPRE 
SENTATION;  TAXATION. 

CIVIL  SERVICE:  Dr.  Rush  on,  187;  P. 
Webster  on,  190.  See  also  JUDICIARY; 
OFFICERS. 

CIVIL  WAR,  1861-65:  see  WAR,  CIVIL. 

CLARK,  DANIEL  [N.  H.]:  b.  1809,  d. 
1891;  Sen.;  sketch  of,  426  f.  n.;  on 
concil.  of  South,  426. 

CLAY,  HENRY  [Ky.]:  b.  1777,  d.  1852; 
inspired  by  _Wythe,  146;  retort  to, 
by  Mrs.  E.  Livingston,  on  his  oratori 
cal  style,  261;  arraigned  by  Giles  for 
his  tariff  views,  262;  negotiator  Treaty 
of  Ghent,  265;  Sec.  of  State,  314; 
arraigned  by  J.  Randolph,  314;  sketch 
of,  325;  defends  embargo  of  1812,  335; 
on  recog.  of  S.  A.  republics,  342;  on 
sympathy  with  for.  republics,  342; 
leader  of  Nat.  Rep.  party,  354; 
opposed  by  Webster,  354;  violates 
promise  to  reduce  tariff,  376;  on 
majority  rule,  377;  declares  against 
nullif.,  378:  debate  in  Ky.  with 
Grundy  on  banking,  381;  remark  of, 
on  Grundy 's  criminal  practice,  382; 
popularity  of,  413. 

CLAYTON,  AUGUSTINE  S.  [Ga.]:  b.  1783, 
d.  1839;  sketch  of,  377;  threatens 
secession  on  tariff  of  1832,  377. 

CLAYTON,  JOHN  MIDDLETON  [Del.] :  b. 
1796,  d.  1856;  adm.  bar  1818;  Del. 
legis.,  1824;  Sec.  State  Del.,  1824; 
U.  S.  Sen.,  1829-37;  chief -jus.  Del. 
1837-40;  U.  S.  Sen.  1845-49;  U.  S. 
Sec.  State  1849-50;  negotiates  treaty 
with  Gt.  Brit,  on  isthmian  canal, 
1850;  U.  S.  Sen.  1851-56;  remark  of, 
to  Webster,  on  his  Reply  to  Hayne, 

CLINTON,  GEORGE  [N.  Y.J:  b.  1739,  d. 
1812;  lawyer;  brig.-gen.  in  Rev.;  gov. 
N.  Y.  1777-955  1801704;  Anti-Fed., 
ref.  to,  225;  aids  in  suppressing 
Shays's  Rebellion;  V.-Pres.  1804-12; 
gives  casting  vote  against  U.  S.  Bank 
charter;  Genet  marries  daughter  of, 
253. 

CLINTON,  SIR  HENRY,  Brit,  gen.:  b. 
1738,  d.  1795;  in  Rev.,  74,  149  f.  n. 

COALITION:  British  cabinets,  17;  of 
Adams  Feds,  and  Repubs.  confirms 
embassy  to  France,  268;  of  Burr 
Repubs.  and  Feds,  to  elect  Burr 
Pres.,  286;  of  Free-Soilers  and  Dems, 
elects  Banks  to  Cong.,  295;  of  J. 
Q.  Adams  and  Clay  elects  Adams 
Pres.,  J.  Randolph  on,  314;  of  Doug 
las  Dems,  and  Repubs.  elects  Baker 
to  Senate,  413. 

COEB,  HOWELL  [Ga.J:  b.  1815,  d.  1868; 
adm.  bar  1836;  M.  C.  1843-51; 
Speaker,  1849-51;  gov.  1851-53; 


442 


Index 


Cobb,  Howell— Continued 

Sec.  Treas.  1857-60;  resigns,  394. 

COERCION:  social,  Sons  of  Liberty,  34; 
Stamp  Act  riots,  37;  gov't  by,  Burke 
on,  106,  no;  of  jState  by  Fed.  Gov't, 
P.  Webster  on,  191;  Madison  on,  211; 
Hayne  on,  373,  374;  constitutionality 
of,  in  re  Secession,  394  et  seq.  See 
also  FORCE  BILL. 

COINAGE:  see  MONEY. 

COKE,  EDWARD,  LORD,  Eng.  jurist: 
b.  1552,  d.  1633;  author  of  Coke  upon 
Lyttleton;  on  powers  of  the  Crown,  116; 
Jefferson  on  Whiggism  of,  151. 

COLONIAL  POLICY,  BRITISH:  Adam 
Smith,  Walpole,  and  Chatham  on, 
5  et  seq.;  Burke  on,  108,  no,  113. 

COLONIAL  RIGHTS,  AMERICAN:  contro 
versies  with  Gt.  Britain  over,  1-119. 

COLONIES:  Hutchinson  on  gov't  of,  80; 
book  by  E.  and  W.  Burke  on,  103; 
conservatism  of  proprietary,  148.  See 
also  CHARTERS;  COLONIAL  RIGHTS. 

COLONIZATION,  AFRICAN:  advocated  by 
Harper,  264. 

COLONIZATION,  EUROPEAN:  see  MONROE 
DOCTRINE. 

COLUMBIA:  emblem  of  the  Union,  371. 

COLUMBIA,  DISTRICT  OF:  see  DISTRICT 
OF  COLUMBIA. 

COMMERCE:  Brit,  taxation  for  regul.  of, 
13, 16  et  seq.,  100;  American,  an  induce 
ment  to  for.  alliances,  131;  necessity 
of,  to  U.  S.  in  Rev.,  149;  Fulton  in 
vents  steamboat,  145  f.  n.;  interstate, 
Annapolis  Conv.  on,  183;  Fed. 
chamber  of,  proposed  by  P.  Webster, 
190 ;  leading  pursuit  of  U.  S.,2i4,  224; 
regul.  of,  by  Fed.  gov't,  215;  severed 
with  France,  267;  J.  Randolph  on 
mercantile  avarice  and  the  fungus 
war  trade,  316,  317;  restored  by 
adoption  of  Const.,  369.  See  also 
BLOCKADE;  BOSTON  PORT  BILL; 
CONSULAR  SYSTEM;  COTTON;  EM 
BARGO;  MARINE,  MERCHANT;  MIS 
SISSIPPI  RIVER;  MOLASSES  ACT; 
NAVIGATION  ACTS;  NON-CONSUMP 
TION;  NON-IMPORTATION;  NON-IN 
TERCOURSE;  SLAVE-TRADE;  TARIFF; 
TAXATION;  TREATIES,  COMMERCIAL. 

COMMERCE,  INTERSTATE:  conv.  on,  at 
Annapolis,  183;  facil.  by  exclusive  is 
sue  of  U.  S.  money,  186;  Cong,  to  con 
trol,  in  Pinckney  plan  of  Const.,  200. 

COMMON  LAW:  see  LAW,  COMMON. 

COMPACT  THEORY  OF  FED.  GOV'T:  see 
STATE  RIGHTS. 

COMPROMISE  OF  1850:  Clay  author  of, 
327. 

CONCILIATION  OF  AMERICA:  hopes  for, 
in  Amer.,  86;  efforts  at,  in  Parl.,  97 
et  seq.;  plans  of,  100  et  seq.;  Burke's 
speech  on,  102  et  seq. 

CONCILIATION  OF  SOUTH  CAROLINA, 
in  nullif.  movement:  Pres.  Adams  on, 
349;  in  Secession  movement,  Pres. 
Buchanan  on,  402;  debate  on,  409 
et  seq.,  423  et  seq.;  Crittenden  as 
peacemaker,  424. 

CONCORD-LEXINGTON:  battle  of,  on 
April  19,  1775,  120,  129. 

CONFEDERACY,  THE  SOUTHERN:  see 
SECESSION. 


CONFEDERATION,  ARTICLES  OF:  deter 
mined  on,  142;  chapter  on,  161  et  seq.; 
weakness  of,  178  et  seq.,  210,  216, 
227,  385;  revision  of,  proposed,  183 
et  seq.;  Dr.  Rush  on,  186;  Const. 
Conv.  called  to  revise,  199,  201,  203, 
205,  207,  212,  218. 

CONFISCATION  OF  PROPERTY:  see 
TORIES. 

CONFISCATION  OF  SLAVES:  see  SLAVERY. 

CONGRESS:  J.  Otis  opens  galleries  to 
public,  10;  Stamp  Act,  29  et  seq.; 
Continental,  85  et  seq.;  of  the  Con 
federation,  176  et  seq.;  of  the  Constitu 
tion,  239  et  seq.;  Cont.  Cong,  demands 
independence  of  legis.,  88;  Chatham 
on  Cont.  Cong.,  97;  Parl.  forbids  it 
to  convene,  116;  Franklin  proposes 
annual  meeting  of  Cong,  of  Confed. 
in  each  State  by  rotation,  161,  would 
give  it  executive  powers,  162;  Dr. 
Rush  advocates  bicameral  syst.,  166; 
should  have  exclusive  power  over 
coinage,  186,  200,  215;  low  character 
of,  187;  powers  of,  in  Randolph's 
plan  of  Const.,  199;  in  Pinckney's 
plan,  200;  in  Va.  plan,  201;  in  Pater- 
son's  plan,  201;  in  Hamilton's  plan, 
209;  debates  on  powers  of,  in  Const. 
Conv.,  202  et  seq.;  controv.  over 
powers  of,  between  Feds,  and  Anti- 
Feds.,  241;  libel  of  members,  279, 
280;  breach  of  privilege  by  John 
Randolpht>  312;  Hayne  denies  right 
of,  to  decide  constitutionality,  361; 
war  power  of,  365;  J.  Q.  Adams  on 
encroachments  by,  on  States,  372; 
Webster  on,  as  judge  of  Const.,  385; 
resignation  of  Southern  Senators  and 
Representatives,  426;  nature  of,  in 
C.  S.  A.  const.,  431.  See  also 
CAUCUS,  CONGRESSIONAL;  COERCION; 
CONSTITUTION;  DEBATE;  HOUSE  OF 
REPRESENTATIVES;  REPRESENTATION; 
SENATE. 

Congressional  Record,  The:  Benton's 
abridg.  of,  iii.,  iv. ;  deficiencies  of, 
v.;  Miller's  digest  of,  vi. 

CONNECTICUT:  dispute  in,  over  Indian 
lands,  31;  ratines  Const.,  228;  carried 
by  Know-Nothings,  290;  rep.  in 
Hart.  Conv.,  337- 

CONSCRIPTION  OF  SOLDIERS:  opposed  by 
Hartford  Conv.,  338;  by  Webster, 
352. 

CONSOLIDATION  IN  FEDERAL  GOVERN 
MENT:  Madison  on,  182;  failure  of, 
under  Andros,  214;  opposition  to, 
in  the  States,  226,  239;  Hayne  on, 
35i.  3755  Webster  and  the  Fathers  on, 
358;  over-action  the  bane  of  gov't, 
372;  Calhoun  on,  383.  See  also 
CONSTITUTION;  GOVERNMENT;  STATE 
RIGHTS. 

CONSTITUTION,  BRITISH:  J.  Otis  on 
Americans  entitled  to  rights  of,  12 
et  seq.;  George  III.  seeks  to  revive 
prerogatives  of  Crown,  16,  17,  27; 
grants  of  money  under,  21,  44; 
Chatham  on  "rotten  boroughs," 
45;  supremacy  of  Parliament,  debates 
on,  47  et  seq.;  seat  in  Parl.  refused 
Wilkes,  47,  93;  Mansfield  a  student  of, 
51;  his  view  of,  53  et  seq.;  Burke  on. 


Index 


443 


Constitution,  British — Continued 

55;  Baron  Blackburn  on,  55;  J. 
Quincy  2d  maintains  Amer.  rights  in, 
61,  62;  Mass,  reechoes  Magna  Charta, 
83;  "King  can  do  no  wrong,"  84,  85, 
93.  97,  114;  principles  of ,  affirmed  by 
Cont.  Cong.,  87,  88,  94;  and  by 
"Suffolk  Resolves,"  95;  Chatham  on, 
97  et  seq.;  Burke  on,  104,  107;  he 
proposes  to  admit  Amer.  to  rights 
under,  109,  in;  J.  Wilson  on  powers 
of  the  Crown,  114  el  seq.;  Coke  on, 
151;  Dr.  Rush  on,  180;  Hamilton  on, 
208;  C.  Pinckney  on,  213;  arbitrary 
rule  of  Andros,  214  f.  n.;  independ.  of 

Sdic.  under,  235;  Tennyson  on,  255; 
ickens  on,  404.  See  also  CIVIL 
RIGHTS;  GREAT  BRITAIN;  PARLIA 
MENT,  SUPREMACY  OF. 

CONSTITUTION,  CONFEDERATE:  differ 
ences  in,  from  Fed.  Const.,  431. 

CONSTITUTION,  FEDERAL:  Elliott's  De 
bates  on,  iv.,  193;  Letters  of  Fabius,  by 
Dickinson,  in  defense  of,  94,  226; 
T.  Paine's  plan  of,  127;  J.  Adams's 
Thoughts  on  Government,  127;  in 
fluence  of  Jefferson  on,  154;  chapter 
on,  177  et  seq.;  checks  in  gov't,  189, 

204,  372,  dep'ts  of,  190;  Const.  Conv., 
acc't  of,  192  et  seq.;  Conv.  limited  to 
revis.  Art.  of  Confed.,  199,  201,  203, 

205,  207,    212,    218;    adopted,    226; 
ratif.  of,  debates  in  States,  226  et  seq.; 
broad    construct,    of,    by    Hamilton, 
242;  strict  construct,  of,  by  Jefferson, 
257;   broad   and  strict  construct,   of, 
273;  common  law  in,  276,  278  et  seq.; 
Commentaries     on     the,     by     Assoc.- 
Just.   Story,    280  f.   n.;   on  elect,   of 
Pres.,    286;    amended,    287;    enforce 
ment    of    laws    till    declared    uncon 
stitutional      decl.      for      by      Know- 
Nothings,  291;  J.  Randolph  on  poison 
in,    311;    Calhoun    on,    331;    amend 
ments  to,  proposed  by  Hart.   Conv., 
339;     commerce     restored     by,     369; 
Jefferson  on  people  as  judge  of,  371; 
principles    of     Dred    Scott    decision 
should  be  incorporated  in,  402.     See 
also     ALIEN     LAWS;     ARTICLES     OF 
CONFEDERATION;    BILL    OF    RIGHTS; 
CONGRESS;    CONSOLIDATION;  Federal 
ist;  HABEAS  CORPUS;     KY.  AND  VA. 
RES.;   LAW;    NULLIFICATION;   PRESI 
DENT;    SECESSION;     SEDITION     LAW; 
SLAVERY;    STATE   RIGHTS;    SUPREME 
COURT;  UNION. 

CONSTITUTIONS  OF  THE  STATES:     Cont. 

Cong,  recommends  adoption  of,  133. 

See  also  the  separate  States. 
CONSULAR   SYSTEM:  suggested   by   Dr. 

Rush,  188;  by  P.  Webster,  190. 


CONTRACTS:  sanctity  of,  upheld  in 
Dartmouth  College  case,  353. 

CONWAY,  GEN.  HENRY  SEYMOUR, 
English  statesman:  Sec.  of  State,  40; 
sketch  of,  47;  asserts  suprem.  Parl., 
40. 

COPLEY,  JOHN  SINGLETON,  SR.,  Amer. 
artist:  b.  1737,  d.  1815;  portrait  of 
Sam  Adams  by,  66. 

CORNWALLIS,  CHARLES  CORNWALLIS, 
MARQUESS  OF,  Brit,  gen.:  surrenders 
at  Yorktown,  Va.,  Oct.  17,  1781, 
232. 

CORPORATIONS,  independ.  of,  declared 
in  Dart.  Coll.  decision,  353. 

CORRESPONDENCE,  COMMITTEE  OF: 
Mass.,  organ,  by  Sam  Adams,  65; 
intercolon.,  organized  by  Sana 
Adams,  78;  revived  on  Lord  North's 
acts,  78,  81. 

CORRUPTION,  POLITICAL:  exposed  by 
R.  H.  Lee,  28;  of  Gt.  Brit.,  Sam 
Adams  on,  70;  Calhoun  on,  384. 
See  also  FLOYD,  JOHN  B.;  YAZOO. 

CORWIN,  THOMAS  [O.]:  b.  1794,  d.  1865; 
for  sketch  see  Vol.  II.;  his  speech 
against  Mex.  War  ref.  to,  iv.;  on 
Crittenden,  424. 

COTTON:  tariff  of  1816  in  interest  of 
mfrs.  of,  365;  depended  on  by  Con 
federacy  to  secure  foreign  recog., 
391,  434. 

CRITTENDEN,  JOHN  J.  [Ky].:  b.  1787,  d. 
1863;  sketch  of,  423;  on  concil.  of 
South,  423  et  seq. 

CROMWELL,  OLIVER,  Lord  Protector  of 
Eng.:  navig.  act  of,  13. 

CROWN,  BRITISH:  see  CONSTITUTION, 
BRITISH;  GEORGE  III. 

CRUGER,  JOHN  [N.  Y.]:  b.  1710,  d.  1792; 
prob.  author  of  N.  Y.  resol.  against 
Stamp  Act,  21;  sketch  of,  30;  drafts 
resol.  for  trial  by  jury  in  Stamp  Act 
Cong.,  30. 

CUBA:  proposed  annex,  of,  296  f.  n.; 
Douglas  on  purchase  of,  408. 

CURRENCY:  see  BANKING;  MONEY. 

CURTIS,  GEORGE  WILLIAM  [N.  Y.]:  b. 
R.  I.,  1824,  d.  1892;  editor  Putnam's 
Monthly,  Harper's  Monthly,  Harper's 
Weekly,  Harper's  Bazaar;  civil  service 
comm'r  1871;  supports  Cleveland 
for  Pres.  1884;  author  of  books  of 
travel,  essays,  fiction;  orator;  on 
Sam  Adams,  68. 

GUSHING,  CALEB  [Mass.]:  b.  1800,  d. 
1879;  for  sketch  see  Vol.  II.;  com 
missioner  of  Pres.  Buchanan  to  S.  C., 
427. 

GUSHING,  THOMAS  [Mass.]:  b.  1725,  d. 
1788;  Speaker  Mass,  assembly  1766- 
74;  del.  to  Cont.  Cong.,  85. 


DALLAS,  GEORGE  MIFFLIN  [Pa.]:  b. 
1792,  d.  1864;  lawyer;  private  sec-  to 
Gallatin  on  mission  to  Russia;  ass't 
of  his  father,  Alexander  James  Dallas, 
as  Sec.  of  Treas.;  dep.  atty.-gen.  for 
Phila.  Co.;  mayor  of  Phila.  1829;  U. 
S.  dist.-atty.,  1829-31;  Sen.  1831- 
33;  prom,  debater;  atty.-gen.  Pa., 


1833-37;  min.  to  Russia,  1837-39; 
V.-Pres.  1845-49;  gives  casting  vote 
for  Walker  Tariff  (revenue  only) 
1846;  min.  to  Gt.  Brit.  1856-61; 
polit.  essayist;  elect,  V.-Pres.,  396. 
DALRYMPLE,  LIEUT.-COL.,  British  com 
mander  in  Bost.:  forced  to  remove 
troops,  76. 


444 


Index 


DARTMOUTH  COLLEGE  CASE:  rights  of 
States  vs.  corporations,  353. 

DARTMOUTH,  WILLIAM  LEGGE,  EARL  OF, 
Brit,  colon,  sec.:  corresp.  with 
Hutchinson,  79;  interview  with,  by 
J.  Quincy  2d,  96. 

DA  VIE,  WILLIAM  RICHARDSON  [N.  C.]: 
b.  Eng.  1759,  d.  1820;  col.  and  comm. 
gen.  in  Rev.;  State  rights  advocate 
in  Const.  Conv.;  founder  Univ.  of 
N.  C.;gov.  1799;  mem.  peace  embassy 
to  France,  268. 

DAVIS,  JEFFERSON  [Miss.]:  b.  1808,  d. 
1889;  sketch  of,  396;  on  Pres.  Bu 
chanan's  message  on  coercion  of  S.  C., 
396;  farewell  of,  to  Senate,  427; 
elected  Pres.  C.  S.  A.,  431;  his  policy 
opposed  by  Stephens,  433;  inaugural 
of,  434. 

DEANE,  SILAS  [Ct.J:  b.  1737,  d.  1789; 
sketch  of,  132  f.  n.;  envoy  to  France, 
132,  147- 

DEBATE:  Benton's  Debates  of  Congress, 
iii.;  Miller's  Great  Debates  in  Amer. 
Hist.,  vi.,  vii.;  art  of,  vii.-x.|  Amer. 
Whig  Soc.,  debating  club  at  Princeton, 
17  f.  n.  For  illustrations  of  the  art  of, 
see  sketches  and  speeches  of  leading 
debaters. 

DEBERDT,  DENNYS,  London  ag't  Mass.: 
protests  against  Stamp  Act,  20. 

DECLARATION  OF  INDEPENDENCE:  see 
INDEPENDENCE,  AMERICAN. 

DEFENSE,  NATIONAL:  militant  res.  of 
Henry,  116  et  seq.;  Rev.  com.  of 
safety,  119;  slavery  a  weakness  in, 
169;  reply  of  U.  S.  envoys  to  Talley 
rand,  267;  Alien  Laws  a  measure  of, 
269  et  seq.;  chapter  on,  298  et  seq.; 
self-interest  a  ruling  principle  of 
gov't.  317;  invasion  of  civil  rights 
justif.  by  self-pres.,  318;  remark  of 
King  Harold  on  giant  invader,  422. 
See  also  MONROE  DOCTRINE;  PRE 
PAREDNESS. 

DELAWARE:  vote  on  Dec.  of  Ind.,isp, 
157;  demands  equal  State  rights  in 
Confed.,  170;  repr.  at  Annapolis 
Cony.,  185;  ratifies  Const.,  228; 
carried  by  Know-Nothings,  290; 
gov.  of,  refuses  to  call  conv.  on 
secession,  391. 

DEMOCRACY,  AMERICAN:  the  New  Eng. 
town-meeting,  68;  Burke  on,  108 
et  seq.;  in  Ireland,  108  f.  n.;  T.  Paine 
on,  126;  Dray  ton  on,  130;  Jefferson 
on,  135,  181;  Washington  on,  182, 
185,  342;  Dr.  Rush  on,  186;  C.  Pinck- 
ney  on,  213;  people  the  subjects  of 
Fed.  gov't,  219,  222;  House  of  Rep. 
represents  people,  241;  Genet  on,  250; 
Jacobin  clubs  in  U.  S.,  251;  policy  9f 
Pres.  Jefferson,  257;  in  domestic 
policy,  308;  need  of,  in  Lat.-Amer., 
343;  people  sovereign,  364.  See  also 
GOVERNMENT;  INDIVIDUALISM. 

DEMOCRATIC  PARTY:  suprem.  of,  from 
Jefferson  to  Lincoln,  285;  extolled 
by  Barry,  294;  subdued  by  Webster's 
Reply  to  Hayne,  379;  pro-slavery 
views  of,  388,  403;  Union  Democrats 
at  mercy  of  Republicans,  392;  opposes 
Pacific  R.  R.,  410;  platform  of  1852, 
406.  See  also  NULLIFICATION;  RE 


PUBLICAN  (DEM.)  PARTY;  SECESSION -, 
SLAVERY;  STATE  RIGHTS. 

DICKENS,  CHARLES,  English  novelist: 
on  Brit.  Const.,  404. 

DICKINSON,  JOHN  [Pa.  and  Del.]:  b. 
1732,  d.  1808;  hopes  for  reconcil.  with 
Gt.  Brit.,  86;  sketch  of,  93;  drafts 
petition  to  King,  93;  opposes  Dec.  of 
Ind.,  147,  159;  in  Rev.,  159  f.  n.; 
mem.  com.  to  frame  Art.  of  Confed., 
163;  writes  in  support  of  Const. 
226. 

DINWIDDIE,  ROBERT,  royal  gov.  of  Va.: 
b.  1690,  d.  1770;  exacts  fees  on  land 
patents,  29. 

DIPLOMACY:  secret,  Banks  on,  296; 
Southern,  Greeley  on,  428.  See  also 
FOREIGN  RELATIONS;  LAW,  INTER 
NATIONAL. 

DIRECT  LEGISLATION:  see  INITIATIVE; 
OFFICERS;  REFERENDUM. 

DISTRICT  OF  COLUMBIA:  Dr.  Rush 
opposes  Fed.  Dist.,  188;  Pinckney 
plan  of  Const,  provides  for,  200;  jury 
trials  in,  234;  abol.  of  slavery  in, 
Crittenden  on,  425. 

DISUNION:  see  NULLIFICATION;  SECES 
SION. 

Dix,  JOHN  ADAMS  [N.  Y.]:  b.  N.  H., 
1798,  d.  1879;  educ.  Phillips  Exeter, 

L  Coll.  of  Montreal,  St.  Mary's,  Md.; 
2d  lieut.  and  adj.  in  War  of  1812; 
aide  to  Gen.  Jacob  Brown  1819: 
studied  law  under  William  Wirt  and 
adm.  bar  Washington;  envoy  to 
Denmark;  resigns  comm'n  as  captain 
1828;  practices  law  Cooperstown, 
N.  Y.;  adj.-gen.  N.  Y.  1830;  Sec. 
N.  Y.  State  and  sup't  schools  1833; 
mem.  "Albany  Regency";  editor 
The  Northern  Light  1841-43;  mem. 
assembly  1841:  U.  S.  Sen.  1845-49; 
Dem.  with  Free-Soil  proclivities; 
defeated  for  gov.  1848;  ass't  treas. 
N.  Y.  1853;  votes  for  Breckinridge, 
1860;  P.  M.  of  N.  Y.  C.  1860;  Sec.  of 
Treas.  1861;  maj.-gen.  in  Civil  War, 
and  commander  Dep't  of  East;  gov. 
N.|  Y.  1873-75;  Pres.  |  of  R.  R.'s.; 
author,  orator,  poet;  active  Unionism 

DON'ELSON,  ANDREW  JACKSON  [Tenn.]: 
b.  1800,  d.  1871;  educ.  at  Univ.  of 
Nashville  and  West  Point;  aide  to  his 
uncle  Gen.  Jackson  in  Fla.  1820-22; 
studied  law  in  Transylvania  Univ., 
Ky.;  adm.  bar  1823;  cotton  planter 
Miss.;  private  sec.  Pres.  Jackson; 
charg£  in  Tex.  1844-46;  min.  to 
Prussia  1846-48;  min.  to  Germany 
1848-49;  ed.  Washington  Union  1851- 
52;  Dem.;  becomes  Know-Nothing; 
nom.  for  Vice-Pres.,  291. 

DONELSON,  FORT,  KY.:  capt.  of,  by 
Gen.  Grant,  430  f.  n. 

" DOUGH-FACES":  def.  of,  by  J.  Ran 
dolph,  313. 

DOUGLAS,  STEPHEN  ARNOLD  [111.]:  b. 
Vt.  1813,  d.  1861;  for  sketch  see 
Vol.  II.;  his  Pop.  Sover.  theory 
opposed  by  Jeff.  Davis,  398;  on  right 
of  States  purchased  by  U.  S.  to  secede, 
408;  opposed  by  South,  411;  on  coer 
cion  S.  C.,  414;  receives  highest  vote 


Index 


445 


Douglas,  Stephen  Arnold — Continued 
for  Pres.  in  Charleston  Dem.   Conv. 
1860,  425. 

DRAYTON,  WILLIAM  HENRY  [S.  C.]:  b. 
1742,  d.  1779;  sketch  of,  73;  opposes 
enforced  patriotic  ass'ns,  73,  74; 
address  to  grand  jury  Charleston, 
128  et  seq.;  his  "Bill  of  Rights" 
adopted  by  Cont.  Cong.,  88;  removed 
from  office,  88;  pres.  of  S.  C.  const, 
conv.,  89. 

DRED  SCOTT  DECISION:  principles  of, 
should  be  adopted  in  Const.,  402; 
main  principles  of,  418. 

DUELLING:  J.  Randolph  as  duellist, 
311:  his  duel  with  Clay,  314;  Wigfall 
as  duellist,  404. 

DULANY,  DANIEL  [Md.]:  b.  1721,  d. 
1797;  his  book  on  colon,  rights,  35; 
sketch  of,  36. 


DUMAS,  M.:  Dutch  friend  of  Franklin 
employed  to  secure  for.  alliances,  132. 

DUNMORE,  JOHN  MURRAY,  EARL  OF: 
b.  1732,  d.  1809;  royal  gov.  N.  Y. 
1770;  Va.  1771-76;  reports  Amer. 
spirit  of  self-gov't,  108. 

DURHAM,  county  palatine  of  Eng.: 
Burke  on,  in. 

DUTCH:  see  HOLLAND. 

DWIGHT,  TIMOTHY  [Ct.]:  b.  Mass.  1752, 
d.  1817;  grad.  and  tutor  of  Yale; 
chaplain  in  Rev.;  farmer,  teacher; 
pioneer  in  higher  educ.  of  women; 
Mass,  legislator;  preacher;  secures 
union  in  New  Eng.  of  Cong,  and 
Pres.  churches;  Pres.  Yale  1795- 
1817;  introduces  oratory  and  rhetoric 
in  curriculum;  poet,  essayist,  theolo 
gian;  prophesies  eminence  of  Calhoun, 
329- 


EAST  INDIA  COMPANY:  see  INDIA. 

ECONOMICS:  see  POLITICAL  ECONOMY. 

EDUCATION:  in  Amer.,  Burke  on,  no; 
Dr.  Witherspoon  as  teacher  of 
statesmanship,  164;  Wythe  as  teacher 
of  law,  146,  151,  165,  232,  261,  325; 
Dr.  Rush  advises  reading  of  Bible  in 
pub.  sch.,  166,  and  estab.  of  Fed. 
Univ.,  188;  political,  campaigns  of, 
285,  349;  of  women,  see  DWIGHT. 

ELECTIVE  FRANCHISE:  J.  Adams  on 
frequent  elections,  128;  principle  of, 
in  Va.  Bill  of  Rights,  136;  prop, 
qual.  in  N.  Y.  in  voting  for  State 
Senators,  220;  milit.  interf.  with 
elections,  409  f.  n.  See  also  HOUSE 
OF  REPRESENTATIVES;  PRESIDENT; 
REPRESENTATION;  SENATE;  WOMAN 
SUFFRAGE. 

ELECTORAL  COLLEGE:  see  PRESIDENT. 

ELECTRICITY:  disc,  in,  by  Franklin,  49. 

ELLIOTT,  JONATHAN:  b.  Eng.  1784,  d. 
1846;  his  Debates  on  the  Constitution, 
iv.;  ref.  to,  193. 

ELLSWORTH,  OLIVER  [Ct.]:  b.  I74S,  d. 
1807;  sketch  of,  198;  in  debate  on 
Senate  in  Const.  Conv.,  215,  221; 
mem.  peace  embassy  to  France,  268. 

ELOQUENCE:  see  ORATORY. 

EMBARGO:  effect  of,  on  commerce,  257; 
of  1794,  309  f.  n.;  laid  by  Pres. 
Jefferson,  319;  supported  by  J.  Q. 
Adams,  323;  and  by  Clay,  326;  laid 
by  Pres.  Madison,  335;  supported  by 
Clay,  335:  opposed  by  Hart.  Conv., 
339,  and  by  Webster,  352,  361,  366; 
Pres.  Jefferson  yields  up,  373.  See 
also  NON-INTERCOURSE.  Cf.  NON 
IMPORTATION. 

EMERSON,  RALPH  WALDO  [Mass.,]  poet, 
essayist:  b.  1803,  d.  1882;  letter  to 
Carlyle  on  Webster,  355. 

Encyclopaedia  Britannica:  on  Conway, 
47;  on  North,  74. 

ENGLAND,  see  GREAT  BRITAIN. 

ERSKINE,  DAVID  MONTAGUE,  BARON: 
b.  1776,  d.  1855;  Brit.  min.  to  U.  S., 
in  re  War  of  1812,  324. 


ESPIONAGE:  created  by  Alien  Laws,  275, 
276. 

Essex:  U.  S.  ship  capt.  by  Brit.,  309; 
Brit,  decision  in  re,  superseded, 
318. 

ESSEX  JUNTO:  anti-Jeff,  faction  in 
Cong.,  304. 

EUROPE:  U.  S.  should  not  rival,  214. 
See  also  HOLY  ALLIANCE;  MONROE 
DOCTRINE,  and  separate  countries 
such  as  GREAT  BRITAIN. 

EUROPEAN  WAR,  THE,  of  1914:  dip. 
contr.  of  U.  S.  in,  ref.  to,  243  f.  n., 
318  f.  n. 

EUSTIS,  WILLIAM  [Mass.]:  b.  1753,  d. 
1825;  grad.  Harvard;  surgeon  in 
Rev.;  mem.  legis.;  M.  C.  1801-05: 
Sec.  War  1807-13;  min.  Holland 
1814-18;  M.  C.  1820-23;  gov.  Mass., 
1823-25;  negot.  treaty  with  Holland, 
258. 

EVERETT,  EDWARD  [Mass.]:  b.  I794t 
d.  1865;  grad.  and  tutor  Harvard; 
Unit,  preacher;  Prof.  Greek  at  Har 
vard  1819;  ed.  N.  A.  Review  1820; 
M.  C.  1825-35;  gov.  Mass.  1835-39; 
min.  Gt.  Brit.  1841-45;  Sec.  State 
1852;  Sen.  1853-54;  nom.  v.-Pres.  by 
Union  party  1860;  supports  Union: 
lecturer  for  good  causes;  finished 
orator;  George  S.  Hillard  wrote  in 
the  N.  A.  Review  for  Jan.,  1837:  "The 
great  charm  of  Mr.  Everett's  orations 
consists  not  so  much  in  any  single 
and  strongly  developed  intellectual 
trait  as  in  that  symmetry  and  finish 
which,  on  every  page,  give  token  to 
the  richly  endowed  and  thorough 
scholar.  .  .  .  His  style,  with  match 
less  flexibility,  rises  and  falls  with  its 
subject,  and  is  alternately  easy,  vivid, 
elevated  .  .  .  adapting  itself  to  the 
dominant  mood  of  the  mind  as  an 
instrument  responds  to  the  touch  of 
a  master's  hand."  Everett  on  Jeffer 
son  and  the  Dec.  of  Ind.,  156;  remark 
of  Webster  to,  on  debate  with  Hayne. 
357- 


446 


Index 


EXECUTIVE:  heads  of  depts.  have  seats 
in  Confed.  Cong.,  431.  See  also 
PRESIDENT. 

EXTRADITION:  of  persons  charged  with 


crime,   in   Pinckney   plan   of   Const., 
200. 

EYRE,  EDWARD  JOHN,  gov.  of  Jamaica: 
impeachment  of,  55. 


Pabius,  Letters  of:  see  DICKINSON. 

FALMOUTH,  MASS:  burnt  by  British,  129 

FANEUIL  HALL,  BOSTON:  cradle  of  Amer. 
liberty,  69. 

FARRAND,  MAX,  PROF.:  his  Records  of  the 
Federal  Convention,  193. 

FEDERAL  DISTRICT:  see  DISTRICT  OF 
COLUMBIA. 

FEDERAL  GOVERNMENT:  see  CONFEDERA 
TION;  CONSTITUTION;  NULLIFICATION; 
STATE  RIGHTS;  SECESSION;  UNION. 

Federalist,  The,  essays  in  support  of 
Const:  Jay's  contrib.  to,  92;  acc't  of, 
226;  editions  of,  227  f.  n. 

FEDERALIST  PARTY:  supports  ratif.  of 
Const.,  231  et  seq.;  hist,  of,  240  et  seq.; 
opposes  annex,  of  territory,  299,  300, 
303;  advocates  forcible  seizure  of 
New  Orl.,  301;  opposes  La.  Purchase, 
302  et  seq.;  opposes  embargo,  322;  in 
Hart.  Conv.,  337;  compared  to 
Bourbons,  338  f.  n.;  triumph  in  Dart. 
Coll.  case,  353;  dissolution  of,  354. 

FEDERAL  PROPERTY:  controversy  bet. 
U.  S.  and  S.  C.  over,  394,  395,  401, 
408,  427,  428,  429,  430;  Sen.  Hunter 
would  prevent  abolition  of  slavery  in 

;  arsenals,  etc.,  425.  See  also  GOVERN 
MENT  OWNERSHIP. 

FEUDALISM:  J.  Adams  on  Canon  and 
Feudal  Law,  35,  37- 

FEYLES,  PHILIP,  German-Amer.  musi 
cian:  name  spelled  Phile,  Pfeil,  etc.; 
d.  1793;  composer  The  President's 
March,  277  f.  n. 

FILLMORE,  MILLARD  [N.  Y.],  I3th  Pres. 
U.  S.:  b.  1800,  d.  1874;  for  sketch  see 
Vol.  II.;  nom.  for  Pres.  by  Know- 
Nothings,  291. 

FINANCE:  in  Rev.,  165;  in  Confed.,  178 
et  seq.,  369;  revenue  contrib.  of  States 
based  on  pop.,  179;  of  States  under 
Confed.,  180;  P.  Webster  on,  189; 
complete  control  of,  by  Cong.,  191; 
debt  to  France,  controv.  over, 
betw.  Hamilton  and  Genet,  246; 
establ.  of  nat.  credit  by  Hamilton, 
246;  reforms  in,  by  Sec.  State  Galla- 
tin,  257;  success  in,  of  Jefferson's 
admin.,  306;  depression  after  War  of 
1812,  382;  sub-Treas.  bill,  382;  failure 
in,  of  Buchanan's  admin.,  394.  See 
also  BANKING;  MONEY. 

FINGLASS,  Chief-Baron  of  Exchequer  to 
Henry  VIII.:  on  Irish  independence, 
108  f.  n. 

"  FIRE-EATERS,"  Southern:  types  of,  270 

FISHING:  by  New  Eng.,  affected  by 
Molasses  Act,  4,  7;  prohibited  by 
Gt.  Brit.,  100;  panegyric  by  Burke  of 
New  Eng.  whalers,  106. 

FLOOD,  HENRY,  English  statesman:  b. 
1732,  d.  1791;  on  Burke,  105. 

FLORIDA:  adm.  Union  1845;  expeditions 
of  Genet  against,  244,  247,  252; 


purchase  of,  302;  secession  movement 
in,  389;  secedes,  393;  in  organ,  of 
C.  S.  A.,  431. 

FLOYD,  JOHN  [Va.]:  b.  1783,  d.  1837; 
M.  C.  1817-29;  gov.  1830-34;  S.  C. 
votes  for,  for  Pres.,  378. 

FLOYD,  JOHN  BUCHANAN  [Va.]:  b.  1807, 
d.  1863;  grad.  Coll.  S.  C.;  lawyer; 
State  legis.;  gov.  1850-53;  Sec.  of 
War  1857-60;  his  course  toward 
secession,  394,  428,  429;  resigns,  429; 
charged  with  defalcation,  429;  ex 
onerated,  430  f.  n.;  brig.-gen.  C.  S.  A., 
surrenders  Ft.  Donelson,  430  f.  n. 

FOOT,  SAMUEL  AUGUSTUS  [Ct.]:  b. 
1780,  d.  1846;  grad.  Yale;  State 
legis.;  M.  C.  1819-21,  1823-25;  Sen. 
1827-33;  M.  C.  1833-34;  gov.  1834- 
35;  his  resol.  on  sale  of  pub.  lands, 
351;  ref.  to,  382. 

FORCE  BILL:  against  nullif.,  381  et  seq. 

FORD,  PAUL  LEICESTER  [N.  Y.],  his 
torian,  novelist:  editor  Federalist, 
227  f.  n. 

FOREIGN  AFFAIRS:  Hamilton  on  for, 
influence  in  U.  S.  gov't.  209;  U.  S. 
must  enter  into,  224;  policy  on,  of 
Pres.  J.  Adams  and  Jefferson,  39?; 
claims  against  for.  gov'ts,  320;  policy 
on,  of  Pres.  Washington,  340  et  seq.: 
policy  on,  of  Clay,  342;  policy  on,  of 
C.  S.  A.,  390,  39i.  434-  See  also 
FRANCE;  GENET;  GERMANY;  GREAT 
BRITAIN;  HOLLAND;  MONROE  DOC 
TRINE;  RUSSIA;  SPAIN;  TREATIES. 

FOREIGN-BORN  CITIZENS:  rad.  jour 
nalists,  271;  secret  ass'ns  of  292; 
oppos.  to,  as  diplomats,  296  f.  n.; 
Banks  on,  297;  oppos.  to,  of  Hart. 
Conv.,  339;  excluded  from  Presi 
dency,  413.  See  also  NATURALIZA 
TION.  Cf.  ALIEN  LAWS. 

FORTS:  see  DONELSON;  FEDERAL  PROP 
ERTY;  SUMTER. 

Fox,  CHARLES  JAMES,  Eng.  statesman: 
b.  1749,  d.  1806;  ref.  to,  17;  on  Burke, 
104;  comp.  with  Burke,  105;  on  the 
Amer.  war,  121;  comp.  with  Giles, 
262. 

FRANCE:  French  and  Indian  war,  7,  8; 
French  Alliance,  1 1  f .  n. ;  sympathizes 
with  U.  S.  in  Rev.,  94,  153;  U.  S. 
debts  to,  178;  war  with  Gt.  Brit., 
1793.  228,  242;  French  Alliance 
annulled  by  Washington's  proc. 
neut.,  228,  242;  breach  with,  229,  262, 
266  et  seq.;  French  Revolution,  253, 
271;  Tennyson  on  French  liberty,  255; 
spoliation  claims  against,  260,  301; 
Harper  on  despotism  of,  274;  cedes 
La.  to  Spain,  299;  Spain  retrocedes 
La.  to,  301;  war  with  Gt.  Brit.  1803, 
308,  316,  317,  3i8,  319;  French  Rep. 
ideal  of  J.  Randolph,  311;  partiality 
toward,  denounced  by  Hart.  Conv., 


Index 


447 


France — Continued] 

338;  presents  her  colors  to  U.  S.,  342 
f.  n.  See  also  EMBARGO;  FOREIGN 
AFFAIRS;  GENET;  TREATIES. 

FRANKLIN,  BENJAMIN:  b.  1706,  d.  1790; 
on  union  of  the  colonies,  18,  72; 
protests  against  Stamp  Act,  21,  48; 
on  Chatham,  44;  sketch  of,  48,  195; 
advocates  Amer.  repr.  in  Parl.,  56; 
obtains  Hutchinson's  corresp.,  80; 
ostracized,  80;  Chatham  on,  98,  99; 
his  plan  of  concil.,  100;  on  army  as 
menace  to  liberty,  101;  advises  T. 
Paine  to  go  to  Amer.,  125;  chm.  com. 
on  Foreign  Alliances,  132;  comp.  with 
J.  Adams,  143;  tribute  to  R.  R. 
Livingston,  Jr.,  145  f.  n.;  on  com.  to 
draft  Dec.  of  Ind.,  150;  makes  changes 
in  Dec.,  156;  remark  on  signing  Dec., 
159;  proposes  Art.  of  Confed.,  161; 
in  debate  on  Art.,  163,  170;  peace 
maker  in  Conv.,  219;  in  debate  on 
Senate,  222;  mem.  com.  on  compro 
mise,  224;  cqmp.  with  Gallatin,  259; 
on  check  to  licentious  press,  281. 

FRAUD:  see  CORRUPTION;  FLOYD,  JOHN 
B.;  YAZOO. 

FREDERICK    Louis,    Prince    of    Wales: 


irony  of  Chatham  in  re  marriage  of, 
42. 

FREE  SPEECH,  etc.:  see  CIVIL  RIGHTS; 
PRESS. 

FREE  TRADE:  see  TARIFF. 

FRENEAU,  PHILIP  [N.  Y.],  poet,  jour 
nalist:  b.  1752,  d.  1832;  grad.  Prince 
ton;  capture  by  Brit,  ship  made  him 
bitter  against  Gt.  Brit.;  ed.  N.  Y. 
Daily  Advertiser,  1790;  employed  by 
U.  S.  gov't,  supports  Genet,  251. 

FUGITIVE  SLAVE  LAW:  the  "Under 
ground  R.R.,"  295;  violation  of,  a 
cause  for  secession,  392;  Pres.  Bu 
chanan  on,  399;  Wigfall  on,  405;  per 
sonal  liberty  laws  in  oppos.  to,  421; 
decl.  const,  by  Atty.-Gen.  Crittenden, 
424;  Crittenden  proposes  indemn.  of 
owners  of  unrestored  fugitives,  425. 
See  also  DRED  SCOTT  DECISION: 
SLAVERY. 

FULTON,  ROBERT  [N.  Y.]:  b.  Pa.  1765,  d. 
1815;  artist,  student  of  Benj.  West 
in  Eng. ;  inven.  various  mech.  ap 
pliances;  advocates  free  trade;  invents 
submarine  in  France  1797-1801; 
invents  torpedo  in  Gt.  Brit.  1804-05; 
invents  steamboat  1793-1807,  145  f.  n. 


GADSDEN,  CHRISTOPHER  [S.  C.J:  b. 
1724,  d.  1805;  del.  to  Stamp  Act  and 
Cont.  Cong.;  brig.-gen.  in  Rev.; 
framer  of  State  const.;  lieut.-goy.; 
surrenders  Charleston  1780;  impris 
oned  by  Cornwallis;  upholds  patriotic 
ass'ns,  74. 

GAGE,  THOMAS,  Brit.-gen.:  b.  1721,  d. 
1787;  brig.-gen.  in  Fr.  and  Ind.  war; 
mil.  gov.  Montreal;  commands  in 
N.  Y.,  30;  gov.  of  Mass.,  72,  82; 
dissolves  assembly,  85;  fortifies 
Boston,  87;  sends  expedition  to  Con 
cord,  96;  arraigned  by  Dray  ton,  129. 

GALLATIN,  ALBERT  [Pa.]:  b.  Switz.  1761, 
d.  1849;  in  debate  on  Jay's  Treaty, 
254;  sketch  of,  255;  opposes  breach 
with  France,  263;  negotiator  of 
Treaty  of  Ghent,  265;  in  debate  on 
alien  laws,  271,  272,  273;  on  sedition 
law,  280;  supports  U.  S.  Bank,  327. 

GALLOWAY,  JOSEPH  [Pa.]:  b.  1729,  d. 
1893;  proposes  pretorian  plan  of 
union,  90;  turns  Tory,  91;  defeats 
J.  Wilson  for  Cont.  Cong.,  115. 

GARNETT,  ROBERT  S.  [Va.J:  b.  1789,  d. 
1840;  sketch  of,  343  f.  n.;  opposes 
recog.  of  S.  A.  repubs.,  343- 

Gaspee,    Brit.    rev.    schooner:    burned, 

GENET,  EDMOND  CHARLES  EDOUARD: 
first  min.  of  France  to  U.  S.:  b.  1765, 
d.  1834;  acts  of,  243  et  seq. 

GEORGE  II.,  King  of  Gr.  Brit.:  dis 
agreement  with  Prince  of  Wales, 
42. 

GEORGE  III.,  King  of  Gt.  Brit.:  policy 
of,  16  et  seq.;  denoun.  by  Henry,  27; 
address  to,  by  Stamp  Act  Cong.,  31; 
his  jealousy  of  Chatham,  43;  deter 
mines  to  tax  Amer.,  58;  purposes  trial 


of  Americans  in  Eng.,  63;  ironical 
address  to,  by  Cont.  Cong.,  93,  94; 
Amer  attitude  toward,  in  1775,  114; 
arraigned  by  Drayton,  129  et  seq.; 
arraigned  by  Cong.,  148;  indicted  in 
Dec.  of  Ind.,  158. 

GEORGE  IV.,  King  of  Gt.  Brit.:  becomes 
Prince  Regent,  16;  rebuke  of,  for 
profanity,  by  clergyman,  422. 

GEORGIA:  least  patriotic  of  colonies,  38; 
unrep.  in  First  Cont.  Cong.,  87;  repres. 
in  Second,  116;  ratifies  Const.,  228; 
in  nullif.  movement,  377  et  seq.; 
conflict  with  Fed.  gov't  over  Indian 
juris.,  377  f.  n. ;  secession  movement 
in,  389;  secedes,  393;  seizes  Fed. 
forts,  etc.,  430;  in  organ,  of  C.  S.  A., 
431;  adopts  dist.  syst.  in  electing 
Cong.,  432;  reconst.  of,  432;  comp. 
with  Ohio,  433;  peace  party  in,  433. 

GERMANY:  gov't  of,  Burke  on,  112; 
mercenaries  of,  in  Rev.,  149;  voting 
by  states  in,  173. 

GERRY,  ELBRIDGE  [Mass.]:  b.  1744,  d. 
1814;  sketch  of,  197;  in  debate  on 
Senate  in  Const.  Conv.,  216;  chm.  of 
comprom.  com.,  224;  envoy  to  France, 
266,  267;  on  confining  citizenship  to 
natives,  297. 

GERRYMANDER,  practice  of  redistricting 
to  prevent  election  of  polit.  opponent, 
named  from  Gerry:  in  case  of  Madi 
son,  140  f.  n. 

GHENT:  see  TREATIES. 

GILES,  WILLIAM  BRANCH  [Va.]:  b. 
1762,  d.  1830;  in  debate  on  Jay's 
Treaty,  254;  sketch  of,  261;  opp. 
breach  with  France,  263. 

GILMAN,  DANIEL  COIT  [Ma.],  educator, 
pres.  Univ.  of  Cal.,  Johns  Hopkins; 
historian:  on  Monroe,  345. 


448 


Index 


GIST,  WILLIAM  HENRY  [S.  C.:]  b.  1809, 
d.  1874;  gov. ;  in  secession  movement, 
388,  389. 

GOLDSMITH,  OLIVER,  Eng.  poet  and 
essayist:  on  Burke,  103. 

GOVERNMENT  :  see  ALIENS  ;  ARISTOCRACY  ; 
BELGIC  CONFEDERACY;  CATHOLICS; 
CIVIL  RIGHTS;  COMMERCE;  COM 
MISSION;  CONFEDERATION;  CONGRESS; 
CONSOLIDATION;  CONSTITUTION;  COR 
RUPTION;  DEFENSE,  NATIONAL; 
DEMOCRACY;  ELECTORAL  FRANCHISE; 
FOREIGN  AFFAIRS;  FOREIGN-BORN; 
GERMANY;  GREECE;  HOLLAND; 
MAJORITY  RULE;  NATURALIZATION; 
NULLIFICATION;  OFFICERS;  POLITICS; 
POPULAR  SOVEREIGNTY;  POST-OFFICE; 
PRESIDENT;  PRESS;  REPRESENTATION  ; 
ROME;  SECESSION;  SOCIAL  CON 
TRACT;  SOVEREIGNTY;  STATE  RIGHTS; 
STATESMANSHIP;  SUPREME  COURT; 
UNION. 

GOVERNMENT  OWNERSHIP:  of  western 
lands,  175;  See  also  FEDERAL  PROP 
ERTY. 

GRAFTON,  AUGUSTUS  HENRY  FITZROY. 
DUKE  OF,  British  statesman:  Sec.  of 
State,  40;  becomes  premier,  58. 

GRANVILLE,  JOHN  CARTERET,  EARL  OF, 
British  statesman:  as  premier,  op 
posed  by  Chatham,  43. 

GRATTAN,  HENRY,  British  statesman: 
on  Chatham,  44  f.  n. 

GRAYSON,  WILLIAM  [Va.l:  b.  1740,  d. 
1790;  opposes  ratif.  of  Const.,  231, 
236;  sketch  of,  236. 

GREAT  BRITAIN:  her  acts  toward  the 
colonies,  1-119;  cider,  tax  on,  in,  17; 
Rev.  of  1688  ref.  to,  53;  corrup.  in, 
Sam  Adams  on,  70;  rule  of,  in  Ireland, 
108  f.  n.;  employs  Indians  in  Rev., 
129;  Jefferson's  censure  of  British 
people  in  Dec.  of  Ind.,  158;  Franklin 
would  admit  Brit,  colonies  into  U.  S., 
162;  reconcil.  with,  sought  by  U.  S., 
163;  decay  of  liberty  in,  173;  refuses 
commer.  treaties  with  U.  S.  under 
Confed.,  178,  183,  216;  excludes 
Amer.  ships  from  W.  I.,  178;  venality 
of  Parl.  compared  with  incorrup 
tibility  of  courts,  203;  agrarianism  in, 
216;  war  with  France  1793,  228,  242, 
244,  247,  249,  250;  Jay's  Treaty  with, 
254;  War  of  1812  with,  ref.  to,  258, 
265;  commer.  treaties  with,  258; 
dispute  with,  over  Me.  boundary, 
259;  Hamilton's  following  stigmatized 


as  Brit,  faction,  268;  denounced  by 
rad.  U.  S.  press,  271;  free  press  in, 
279;  libels  against  Parl.,  280;  alien 
and  sedition  laws  of,  282;  Jefferson  on 
union  with,  against  French  domin.  of 
Miss,  river,  300;  war  with  France 
1803,  308;  seizes  Amer.  ships  1794, 


309  f.  n.;  ideal  of  J.  Randolph,  313, 
333,  335;  war  with,  opp.  by  Ran- 
lolph,  315;  naval  strength  of,  315; 


invasion  by,  of  neutral  rights,  de 
fended  by  Randolph,  318;  treaty  of 
1806  with,  refused  by  Pres.  Jefferson, 
318;  war  with,  in  1812,  inevitable, 
319;  prohibits  neutral  trade,  im 
presses  Amer.  seamen,  and  declares 
blockade,  319;  War  of  1812  with, 
324  et  seq.;  denounced  by  R.  M. 
Johnson,  333;  enmity  toward,  de 
nounced  by  Hartford  Conv.,  338; 
opposes  ist  decl.  of  Mon.  Doct.,  346. 
See  also  CONSTITUTION.  BRITISH; 
EMBARGO;  INDEPENDENCE,  DECLAR 
ATION  OF;  IRELAND;  PARLIAMENT; 
SCOTLAND;  TREATIES;  WARE  vs. 
HILTON. 

Great  Debates  in  American  History: 
edited  by  M.  M.  Miller,  vi. 

GREECE:  gov^t  of  Sparta,  171,  204; 
Amphictyonic  council,  destroyed  by 
Philip,  211,  218;  patrician  rule  in, 
214;  U.  S.  sympathy  with,  262;  de 
bate  on  sending  comm'r  to,  betw. 
Webster  and  J.  Randolph,  354. 

GREELEY,  HORACE  [N.  Y.I:  b.  N.  H.f 
1811,  d.  1872;  ed.  N.  Y.  Tribune; 
defeat  of,  for  Pres.,  295;  on  Southern 
diplomacy,  428;  on  value  of  U.  S. 
prop,  seized  by  C.  S.  A.,  430. 

GREEN,  BOLLING  [111. ],  justice  of  the 
peace:  anec.  of,  by  Baker,  419. 

GREEN,  JOHN  RICHARD,  Eng.  historian: 
on  Burke,  104. 

GRENVILLE,  SIR  GEORGE,  Brit,  states 
man:  b.  1712,  d.  1770;  premier  1763- 
65;  policy  of,  1 8  et  seq.;  sketch  of,  41, 
45;  defends  taxation  of  Amer.,  45; 
instigates  Townshend  taxes,  58. 

GRIDLEY,  JEREMIAH  [Mass.]:  b.  1702, 
d.  1767;  sketch  of,  8;  prosecutor  of 
Writs  of  Assistance,  8;  argues  against 
Stamp  Act,  38. 

GRUNDY,  FELIX  [Tenn.]:  b.  Va.,  1777, 
d.  1840;  advocates  war  with  Gt. 
Brit.,  332;  sketch  of,  381;  opposes 
nullif.,  381,  383. 

GUILFORD,  EARL  OF:  see  NORTH. 


H 


HABEAS  CoRPUs.'writ  of:  suspension  of 
in  peace,  prohib.  by  Const.,  274. 

"HAIL  COLUMBIA":  song  by  Joseph  Hop- 
kinson,  277. 

HALE,  JOHN  P.  [N.  H.J:  b.  1806,  d.  1873; 
sketch  of,  402;  on  Pres.  Buchanan's 
message  on  coercion  of  S.  C.,  402,  404. 

HALE,  SIR  MATTHEW,  Brit,  jurist:  b. 
1609,  d.  1676;  lord  chief -just.  1671- 
76;  on  powers  of  the  Crown,  116; 
on  legality  of  Christianity,  152. 

HAMILTON,    ALEXANDER    IN.    Y.]:    b. 


W.  I.,  1757,  d.  1804;  comp.  with  J. 
Adams,  143;  proposes  revision  of  Art. 
of  Confed.,  183,  184;  his  plan  of  Const, 
ref.  to,  191;  sketch  of,  196;  in  debate 
on  represen.  in  Const.  Conv.,  202, 
207,  208;  supports  aristoc.,  209;  on 
State  sov.,  220;  joint  author  Federal 
ist,  226;  defends  Washington's  proc. 
of  neut.,  227,  242,  243;  on  the  Const., 
234;  supports  ratif.  of  Const.,  238; 
policy  of,  as  Sec.  of  Treas.,  242; 
Federalist  leader,  253;  comp.  with 


Index 


449 


Hamilton,"  Alexander — Continued 

Gallatin,  255;  arraigned  by  Giles, 
262;  eulogized  by  H.  Otis,  264;  2d  in 
command  of  army  in  breach  with 
France,  267;  quarrel  with  Pres. 
Adams,  268;  arraigns  Pres.  J.  Adams, 
282;  a  mild  protectionist,  329;  prob. 
author  Washington's  Farewell  Add., 
340  f.  n. 

HAMMOND,  JAMES  H.  [S.  C.]:  b.  1807, 
d.  1865;  sketch  of,  388  f.  n.;  in  seces 
sion  movement,  388;  expelled  from 
Senate,  391  f.  n. 

HANCOCK,  JOHN  [Mass.]:  b.  1737,  d. 
1793;  merchant;  State  legis.;  M.  C. 
1775-80,  1785-86;  pres.  Cong.  1775- 
77;  maj.-gen.  in  Rev.;  mem.  Mass. 
Const.  Conv.  1780;  gov.  1780-85, 
1787;  inducted  by  Sam  Adams  into 
politics,  65;  protests  against  troops  in 
Boston,  75;  orator  on  Boston  Massa 
cre,  77;  proscribed  by  Brit,  gov't,  86; 
remark  of,  on  signing  Dec.  of  Ind., 
159;  Dr.  Witherspoon  dedicates 
sermon  to,  164. 

HARDWICKE,  HENRY,  Amer.  author:  on 
Ames,  229. 

HAROLD,  King  of  Eng.:  remark  of,  on 
giant  invader,  422. 

HARPER,  ROBERT  G.  [S.  C.  and  Md.] : 
b.  Va.,  1765,  d.  1825;  supports 
breach  with  France,  263;  sketch  of, 
264;  defends  alien  laws,  273,  274;  and 
sedition  law,  277,  278,  281. 

HARRISON,  BENJAMIN  [Va.] :  b.  1740,  d. 
1791;  sketch  of,  117;  opposes  Henry's 
milit.  res.,  117;  in  debate  on  Art.  of 
Confed.,  163,  169;  gov.  of  Va.,  183. 

HARRISON,  WILLIAM  HENRY  [O.J:  b. 
Va.,  1773,  d.  1841;  in  U.  S.  A.,  1791- 
97;  Sec.  N.  W.  Terr.,  1799-1800;  gov. 
Ind.  1801-13;  maj.-gen.  in  War  of 
1812;  M.  C.  1816-19;  Sen.  1825-28; 
min.  to  Colombia  1828-29;  ninth 
Pres.  1841;  defeats  Tecumseh,  333; 
cand.  for  Pres.,  382. 

HARTFORD  CONVENTION:  members  polit 
ically  damned,  294;  history  of,  337 
et  seq.;  opposed  by  Webster,  352; 
denounced  by  Benton,  376. 

HARTLEY,  DAVID,  British  statesman: 
presents  plan  of  conciliating  Amer., 

IO2. 

HAWLEY,  JOSEPH  [Mass.]:  b.   1723,   d. 

1788;    grad.    Yale;    State    legis.;    on 

com.  of  corresp.;  denies  right  of  Parl. 

to  govern  Amer.,  56. 
HAWTHORNE,  JULIAN  [N.  Y.]:  b.  Mass. 

1846;  author;  on  Ames,  230. 
HAYES,    RUTHERFORD    BIRCHARD    [O.]: 

b.     1822,    d.     1893;    grad.     Kenyon, 

Harvard    law    school;    city    solicitor 

Cincinnati   1859-61;  Rep.;  maj.-gen. 

in  Civil  War;  M.  C.  1865-1867;  gov. 

1868-72;  removes  to  Fr6mont   1873; 

gov.  1874-76;  Pres.  1877-81;  contest 

for  Pres.  ref.  to,  434. 
HAYNE,  ISAAC  W.,  COL.  [S.C.]:  ag'tGov. 

Pickens,      demands      surrender      Ft. 

Sumter,  430. 
HAYNE,  ROBERT  YOUNG  [S.  C.] :  b.  1791, 

d.     1839;  comp.  with  Calhoun,  340, 

375;   floor  leader   of   Dem.    Senators, 

349;    sketch    of,    350;    debate    with 

29 


Webster  on  nature  of  Union,  350,  357 
et  seq.;  on  sale  of  pub.  lands,  351;  as 
gov.  he  prepares  State  for  war,  380, 
381. 

HELVETIC  CONFEDERACY:  see  SWITZER 
LAND. 

"HELVIDIUS":  pen-name  of  Madison 
in  controv.  with  Hamilton  over 
Washington's  proc.  of  neut.,  228, 
243  f.  n. 

HENRY,  PATRICK  [Va.]:  b.  1736,  d. 
1799;  sketch  of,  24;  speech  of,  against 
Va.  clergy,  25;  against  Stamp  Act, 
26,  27;  comp.  with  R.  H.  Lee,  28; 
fails  to  present  Jefferson's  instruc 
tions  to  Va.  del.  to  Cong.,  86;  against 
voting  by  colonies  in  Cong.,  89; 
against  Galloway's  plan  of  union, 
90,  91;  believes  war  inevit.,  95; 
milit.  res.  and  speech  by,  116;  on 
for.  alliances,  131;  Choate  on,  144; 
opposes  ratif.  of  Const.,  231,  232,  234; 
on  precedence  of  liberty  over  Union, 
378. 

HILDRETH,  RICHARD  [Mass.]:  b.  1807,  d. 
1865;  historian;  on  Josiah  Quincy 
3d,  305  f.  n. 

HlLLSBOROUGH,   WlLLS  HlLL,   EARL  OF, 

Brit,  statesman:  b.  1718,  d.  1793; 
Sec.  of  State;  controv.  with  Mass, 
assem.,  59,  60. 

HOLLAND:  Prince  Maurice  on  Dutch 
character,  55;  Dutch  Rev.,  ref.  to, 
148;  U.  S.  debts  to,  178;  Dutch 
confed.,  172,  204,  211,  218,  219; 
treaty  with,  258;  Talleyrand  demands 
U.  S.  "loan"  to,  267;  navy  of,  de 
stroyed  by  Gt.  Brit.,  316. 

HOLT,  JOSEPH  [Ky.]:  b.  1807,  d.  1894; 
comm'r  patents  1857;  P-  M.-Gen'l 
1859;  Sec.  War,  1860;  judge  adv.-gen. 
U.  S.  A.,  1862;  maj.-gen.,  1865;  app. 
Sec.  War,  429. 

HOLY  ALLIANCE:  league  of  Europ. 
monarchies,  347. 

HOPKINS,  STEPHEN  [R.  I.]:  b.  1707,  d. 
1785;  in  debate  on  Art.  of  Confed., 
163,  173;  sketch  of,  167. 

HOPKINSON,  JOSEPH  [Pa.]:  b.  1770,  d. 
1842;  jurist,  lawyer,  poet;  M.  C. 
1815-19;  U.  S.  dist.  judge  1828-42; 
author  Hail  Columbia,  277  f.  n. 

HOSMER,  JAMES  K.  [Mo.],  educator  and 
author:  on  Sam  Adams,  68. 

HOUSE  OF  REPRESENTATIVES:  dem. 
nature  of,  241,  380;  claims  right  to 
pass  on  Jay's  Treaty,  254;  Ways  and 
Means  Com.  instituted,  257;  elects 
Jefferson  Pres.,  286;  elects  J.  Q.  Adams 
Pres.,  314;  dist.  syst.  of  repr.  adopted 
in  Ga.,  432;  See  also  CONSTITUTION, 
U.  S.;  REPRESENTATION. 

HOUSTON,  SAMUEL  [Tex.]:  b.  Va.  1793, 
d.  1863;  in  Creek  War  1813-14;  adm. 
bar;  M.  C.  [Tenn.l  1823-25;  gov. 
Tenn.  1827-29;  revolutionary  gen.  in 
Tex.  1833-36;  Pres.  Tex.  Rep.  1836- 
38,  1841-44;  Tex.  Cong.  1838-40; 
U.  S.  Sen.  1846-59;  gov.  1859-61; 
deposed  1861;  his  attitude  toward 
secession,  391. 

HOWE,  RICHARD:  Brit,  admiral:  b.  1725, 
d.  1799;  Viscount,  1782;  peace 
proposals  of,  131. 


450 


Index 


HOWE,  WILLIAM:  Brit,  gen.:  b.  1729,  d. 

1814;  Viscount,  1799;  peace  proposals 

of,    131;   commander   in   Amer.,    149 

f.  n.;  treats  of  exchange  of  prisoners, 

236. 
HUNTER,  ROBERT  M.  T.  [Va.]:  b.  1809, 

d.  1887;  sketch  of,  425;  on  concil.  of 

S.  C.,  425  et  seq. 
HUTCHINSON,  THOMAS  [Mass.]:  b.  1711, 

d.    1780;   judge   in   Writs   of   Assist. 


trial,  8,  15;  house  raided  in  Stamp 
Act  riot,  38;  on  Sam  Adams,  67;  gov. 
Mass.,  71;  sketch  of,  71;  forced  to 
remove  troops  from  Boston,  75  et  seq.; 
in  controv.  with  Sam  Adams,  78  et 
seq.;  on  civil  rights,  79,  80;  prorogues 
Mass,  assem.,  80;  abortive  petition 
to  remove,  81. 

"HYPERION":     pen-name     of     Josiah 
Quincy  ad,  61. 


IMMIGRATION:  effect  of  Jefferson's 
Notes  on  Va.,  153;  induced  by  land 
grants,  175;  flood  of,  in  1848-49, 
289;  affiliation  of  immigrants  for 
Dem.  party,  269;  opposed  by  Banks, 
297.  See  also  ALIEN  LAWS;  KNOW- 
NOTHINGS;  NATURALIZATION;  SEDI 
TION  LAW. 

IMPEACHMENT:  of  Gov.  Eyre  of  Jamaica, 
55 ;  Associate- Justice  Samuel  Chase, 
264,  313;  of  Sen.  W.  Blount,  265;  of 
Pres.  Johnson,  414  f.  n. 

IMPERIALISM:  Chatham  empire-builder, 
7,  43. 

IMPRESSMENT  OF  AMER.  SEAMEN:  debate 
on,  in  Parl.  during  Amer.  Rev.,  121; 
denounced  by  Drayton,  129;  before 
War  of  1812,  309;  allowed  by  Pink- 
ney-Monroe  Treaty  of  1806,  318;  the 
Chesapeake  affair,  319,  329. 

INDEPENDENCE,  AMERICAN:  Mass. 
towns  deny  desire  for,  60;  Sam  Adams 
threatens,  69,  70;  Hutchinson  opposes, 
79;  John  Adams  on,  87;  Chatham 
opposes,  97;  North  proposes  to  crush, 
100;  hist,  of  Dec.  of,  120  et  seq.;  Dr. 
Rush  on,  1 88;  Chesnut  on  dogmas  of 
Dec.  of,  389;  Dec.  of,  declares  right 
of  revol.,  400;  Dec.  of,  justifies 
secession,  407.  See  also  CIVIL 
RIGHTS;  DEMOCRACY;  SOVEREIGNTY. 

INDIA:  gov't  of,  Burke  on,  113;  voting 
in  East  India  Co.,  171;  oppression  of, 
by  Gt.  Brit.,  390. 

INDIANS,  AMERICAN:  war  with  French 
and,  7,  8;  dispute  over  Mohegan 
lands  in  Ct.,  31;  employment  of,  in 
Rev.,  121,  129;  Franklin  on  policy 
toward,  162;  medicines  of,  Dr.  Rush 
on,  166;  excluded  from  repres.,  168, 
2Oij  defense  against,  180;  Jefferson 
on  individualism  of,  181;  wars  with, 
under  Confed.,  210;  rights  of,  ref.  to, 
297  f.  n.;  blood  of,  in  J.  Randolph, 
310;  Randolph  on  policy  toward,  318; 


Clay  on  policy  toward,  326;  conflict 
of  Ga.  with  U.  S.  over  juris,  over 
Cherokees,  377  f.  n.;  Calhoun  on 
wretched  condition  of,  384;  fraud  in 
Indian  Bureau,  429.  See  also 
OLIVER;  ORR;  TECUMSEH;  WARS, 
INDIAN. 

INDIVIDUALISM:  Burke  on,  109;  Jeffer 
son  on,  181.  See  also  DEMOCRACY. 

INDUSTRY,  AMERICAN:  acts  of  Parl. 
restraining  mfrs.,  4,  5;  mfr.  rum  in 
New  Eng.,  4,  7.  See  also  COMMERCE; 
TARIFF. 

INITIATIVE:  P.Webster  on,  191. 

INQUISITION:  principles  of,  adopted  by 
Know-Nothings,  293. 

INSURRECTION:  function  of  judges  in, 
414,  415.  See  also  SHAYS,  DANIEL; 
WHISKEY.  Cf.  COERCION;  NULLIFI 
CATION;  SECESSION. 

INTERNAL  IMPROVEMENTS:  Giles  vs. 
Harper  on,  262,  264;  advocated  by 
Clay,  326;  protest  by  Va.  against, 
360. 

International  Encyclopaedia:  on  Gren- 
ville,  41. 

INTERNATIONAL  LAW:  see  LAW,  INTER 
NATIONAL. 

INTERSTATE  COMMERCE:  see  COMMERCE, 
INTERSTATE. 

INVENTION:  see  ELECTRICITY;  FULTON. 

IREDELL,  JAMES,  2d  [N.  C.]:  b.  1788,  d. 
1853;  judge  sup.  ct.  N.  C.  1819;  gov. 
1827;  Sen.  1828-31;  on  Webster's 
Reply  to  Hayne,  362. 

IRELAND:  Finglass,  chief -baron  excheq. 
to  Henry  VIII.,  on  democ.  in,  108 
f.  n.;  Burke  on  Brit,  gov't  of,  in; 
famine  in,  289. 

IRVING,  WASHINGTON  [N.  Y.]:  b.  1783, 
d.  1859;  historian,  essayist;  on  E. 
Pendleton,  119. 

IVERSON,  ALFRED  [Ga.]:  b.  1798,  d. 
1873;  on  coercion  of  S.  C.,  402,  405; 
sketch  of,  403. 


JACKSON,  ANDREW  [Tenn.]:  b.  S.  C., 
1767,  d.  1845;  adm.  bar  1788;  M.  C. 
1796-97;  Sen.  1797-98;  judge  sup.  ct. 
Tenn.  1798-1804;  maj.-gen.  U.  S.  A. 
1814;  gov.  Fla.,  1821;  Sen.  1823; 
7th  Pres.  1828-36;  proc.  against 
nullif.,  260,  378,  379,  422;  defeated 
for  Pres.  1824,  314;  opp.  by  J.  Ran 
dolph,  315;  denounced  by  Clay  for 


Seminole  War,  326;  groomed  for 
Pres.,  348;  procures  passage  of  Force 
Bill,  381;  on  secession,  387,  400,  418. 

JACKSON,  F.  J.,  Brit.  min.  to  U.  S.:  in  re 
War  of  1812,  324. 

JACOBIN  CLUBS:  in  Amer.,  251. 

JAMAICA:  impeachment  of  Gov.  Eyre, 
55;  sympathy  with  other  Amer. 
colonies,  56. 


Index 


451 


JAMES  I.,  King  of  Eng.;  taxes  Va. 
tobacco,  2;  encroaches  on  civil 
liberty,  37. 

JAY,  JOHN  [N.  Y.:]  b.  1745,  d.  1829; 
sketch  of,  91;  upholds  Galloway's 
plan  of  union,  91;  drafts  address  to 
King,  91;  compared  with  J.  Adams, 
143;  law  partner  of  R.  R.  Livingston 
ad,  145;  proposes  Const.  Conv.,  184; 
joint  author  Federalist,  226;  negotia 
tions  of,  with  Spain  on  navig.  of  Miss., 
299. 

JEFFERSON,  THOMAS  [Va.]:  b.  1743,  d. 
1826;  on  P.  Randolph,  28,  29;  comp. 
with  Franklin,  49;  on  Mansfield,  53; 
on  S.  Adams,  67;  on  J.  Adams,  69, 
156,  IS7;  drafts  instruct.  Va.  dele 


gates  to  Cong.,  86;  is  proscribed  by 
Brit,  gov't,  86;  on  Jay,  91;  revises 
laws  of  Va.,  119;  on  E.  Pendleton, 


119;  on  com.  of  armed  defense  of  Va., 
119;  denies  knowledge  Meek.  Dec., 
123;  on  G.  Mason,  135;  polit.  partner 
Madison,  140,  253;  his  Va.  statute  of 
relig.  freedom,  140,  294;  author  Dec. 
of  Ind.,  142  el  seq.',  comp.  with  J. 
Adams,  143;  tribute  to,  by  Choate, 
144;  on  Wythe,  146;  on  Sherman, 
151;  sketch  of,  151;  influence  of,  on 
Const.,  154;  his  acc't  of  debate  on 
Confed.,  163  el  seq.;  secures  Va. 
cession  of  western  lands  to  U.  S.,  176; 
on  Shays's  Rebellion,  181;  Sec.  of 
State  in  re  Wash.'s  proc.  of  neut., 
242;  controv.  with  Genet,  246  et  seq.; 
leader  of  Rep.  party,  253;  policy  of, 
as  Pres.,  257;  relations  with  E. 
Livingston,  260;  elected  V.-Pres., 
266;  in  re  Ky.  Res.,  282  et  seq.,  349; 
elect.  Pres.s  286;  his  inaug.,  287,  288, 
307  f.  n.;  on  combating  error  with 
truth,  292;  in  re  La.  Purchase,  298 
et  seq.;  reforms  domestic  admin.,  300, 
305;  pen-picture  of,  by  Sampson, 
306;  for.  policy  of,  307;  protests 
against  Brit,  impress.  Amer.  seamen, 
309;  as  Sec.  State  inspires  Madison's 
commer.  res.,  309  f.  n.;  oppos.  by  J. 
Randolph,  312;  refuses  treaty  of  1806 
with  Gt.  Brit.,  318;  his  embargo, 
3iQt  323,  373;  Goldwin  Smith  on, 
328;  law  teacher  of  Monroe,  343; 
Webster  on,  353;  prepares  Va.  protest 
against  tariff  and  inter,  improv., 
360;  on  people  as  judge  of  Const., 
371.  See  also  PRIMOGENITURE. 
JERSEY  PLAN  OF  CONSTITUTION:  debate 
on,  201  et  seq. 


JOHNSON,  ANDREW  [Tenn.J:  b.  N.  C., 
1808,  d.  1875;  I7th  Pres.;  for  sketch 
see  Vol.  II.;  on  coercion  of  S.  C.,  414; 
impeachment  of,  414  f.  n.;  amnesty 
of,  425. 

JOHNSON,  GEORGE  [Va.]:  supports 
Henry's  res.  against  Stamp  Act,  27. 

JOHNSON,  HERSCHEL  V.  [Ga.]:  b.  1812, 
d.  1880;  for  sketch  see  Vol.  II.; 
opposes  secession,  393. 

JOHNSON,  RICHARD  M.  [Ky.]:  b.  1781, 
d.  1850;  sketch  of,  333;  advocates 
War  of  1812,  333;  defends  reg.  army, 
333- 

JOHNSON,  DR.  SAMUEL,  Eng.  author:  his 
Taxation  No  Tyranny,  31;  back 
handed  compliment  by,  417. 

JOHNSON,  DR.  WILLIAM  SAMUEL  [Ct.J: 
b.  1727,  d.  1819;  sketch  of,  31;  in 
Stamp  Act  Cong.,  31;  in  Const.  Conv., 
212. 

JOHNSTON,  ALEXANDER  [N.  J.]:  b.  1849, 
d.  1889;  ed.  Amer.  Orations,  viii.; 
joint  ed.  Amer.  Polit.  Hist.,  286  f.  n.; 
on  reversal  of  polit.  opinion  in  Va., 
286  f.  n. 

JOHNSTON,  HENRY  P.,  American  author: 
on  Jay,  92. 

JONES,  SIR  WILLIAM,  Eng.  authpr  and 
statesman:  quoted  on  dedication 
page;  his  motto  for  French-American 
alliance  medal,"!  i  f.  n. 

JUDICIARY:  colon,  indep.  of,  59,  112; 
salaries  of,  80,  98;  a  distinct  dep't  of 
gov't,  136;  Fed.,  proposed  powers  of, 
199,  200,  201,  202,  209,  213;  British, 
incorruptibility  of,  203,  235;  weakness 
of  Fed.,  under  Confed.,  210;  Act  of 
1801,  205,  287,  288,  338;  in  re  alien 
laws,  275;  bribery  of,  280;  Pres. 
Adams  appoints  "midnight  judges," 
287^  unable  to  prevent  smuggling 
during  embargo,  322;  State,  holds 
embargo  unconstit.,  323;  Fed.,  in- 
depend.  of,  368;  absence  of,  in  S.  C. 
forbids  coercion,  395,  401,  408,  414; 
function  of,  in  suppressing  insurrec 
tion,  414,415.  See  also  CONSTITUTION, 
U.  S.;  LAW;  SUPREME  COURT. 

JURY,  TRIAL  BY:  demanded  by  Stamp 
Act  Cong.,  30;  trial  of  Amer.  in  Eng., 
62,  82,  98,  112;  demanded  by  Cont. 
Cong.,  88;  suspended  in  S.  C.,  128; 
upheld  in  Va.  Bill  of  Rights,  136; 
guaranteed  by  Const.,  200;  in  Fed. 
cases,  234;  packing  juries  by  gov't, 
281;  in  Va.,  235;  denied  by  alien  laws, 
275;  coercion  of  juries  by  gov't,  374. 


KENT,  JAMES  [N.  Y.]:  b.  1763,  d.  1847; 
just.  N.  Y.  sup.  ct.  1798;  Chancellor 
1814;  pub.  Commentaries  on  Amer. 
Law  1830;  on  M.  Smith,  238. 

KENTUCKY:  adm.  Union  1792;  expedi 
tions  formed  in,  against  New  Orl., 
252,  270,  299;  carried  by  Know- 
Nothings,  290;  Clay  proposes  grad. 
emanc.  in,  326;  debates  in,  between 
Clay  and  Grundy,  381;  gov.  of, 
refuses  to  call  secession  conv.,  391. 

KENTUCKY  AND  VIRGINIA  RESOLUTIONS, 


protests  against  alien  and  sedition 
laws,  and  statements  of  Repub. 
doctrine:  Madison  opposes  Calhoun's 
view  of,  260;  hist,  of,  282  et  seq.; 
expos,  of  doct.  of,  in  Madison's 
Report  on  Va.  Res.,  285;  debate  on, 
between  Henry  and  J.  Randolph,  312; 
ref.  to,  349;  Hayne  and  Webster  on, 
360,  364,  371;  creed  of  Dem.  party, 
406. 

KING,    RUFUS    [Mass,    and    N.    Y].:   b. 
Me.,   1755,  d.   1827;  sketch  of,   197; 


452 


Index 


King.  Rufus — Continued 

in    debate    on    repres.,    222;    Feder. 
cand.  for  Pres.,  344- 

KNOW-NOTHING  (AMERICAN)  PARTY: 
hist,  of,  288  el  seq. 

KNOX,  HENRY  [Me.]:  b.  Boston,  1750, 
d.  1 806:  bookseller;  brig.-gen.  in  Rev., 
assoc.  Wash.jcomm'd  maj.-gen.  close 
of  war;  a  founder  of  the  Cincinnati; 


receives  surrender  N.  Y.  City;  Sec. 
War  1785-96;  4th  in  command  in 
breach  with  France,  268. 
KOSZTA,  MARTIN:  Hungarian  revolu 
tionist  naturalized  as  Amer.  citizen; 
while  in  Turkey  in  1853  seized  by 
Austrians  and  rescued  by  Commander 
Duncan  L.  Ingraham,  U.  S-  N.; 
controv.  with  Austria  over,  297  f.  n. 


LABOR:  condition  of,  during  Rev.,  168 
el  seq.  See  also  SLAVERY. 

LA  FAYETTE,  MARIE  JEAN  PAUL 
JOSEPH  ROCHE  YVES  GILBERT  DU 
MOTIER,  MARQUIS  de,  French  states 
man:  b.  1757,  d.  1834;  officer  in  Fr. 
army;  aide  to  Washington  and  brig.- 
gen.  in  Rev.;  returns  to  France,  1779; 
comes  again  to  Amer.  with  Rocham- 
beau's  army  1780;  commander  in  Va. 
until  Yorktown ;  returns  France  1781; 
chief -of -staff  in  Spain;  visits  U.  S. 
1783-84;  purchases  plantation  in 
Cayenne  for  educ.  of  slaves  for  grad. 
emanc.;  mem.  Fr.  Parl.  1787-89; 
comm.-in-chief  Nat.  Guard  1789- 
91;  lieut.-gen.  in  war  with  Austria, 
1792;  denounces  Jacobins;  removed 
from  command  by  Nat.  Assem.;  flees 
from  impeachment;  impris.  by  Teu 
tonic  allies,  1792-97;  refuses  liberty 
on  cond.  of  fighting  France;  freed  by 
victories  of  Bonaparte;  refuses  office 
and  honors;  in  Fr.  Assem.  1815; 
attempts  to  secure  Napoleon's  escape 
to  U.  S.;  in  Fr.  Assem.  1818-24; 
upholds  democ.  meas.;  visits  U.  S. 
on  invitation  Cong.,  1824-25;  in 
Fr.  Assem.,  1827-1834;  commands 
Nat.  Guard  1830,  which  places  Louis 
Philippe  on  throne;  attracted  to 
Amer.  by  love  of  liberty,  255. 

LAMARTINE,  ALPHONSE  MARIE  Louis 
DE  PRAT  DE,  Fr.  poet,  orator,  states 
man,  historian:  on  revolutionary 
oratory,  144. 

LAND:  gov.  of  Va.  exacts  fees  on  patents, 
29;  value  of,  an  index  of  nat.  pros- 

Ssrity,  46,  colonists'  title  to,  59; 
rit.  gov't  proposes  to  limit  grants 
of,  109;  spec,  in,  by  J.  Wilson,  115; 
value  of,  and  of  improvements  made 
basis  of  repres.  in  Cong,  of  Confed., 
169,  179;  Fed.  ownership  of  western, 
174  el  seq.,  191;  P.  Webster  on  value 
of,  as  basis  of  apportioning  revenue, 
191;  landed  interest  in  U.  S.,  214; 
it  should  control  in  Sen.,  215; 
agrarianism  in  Eng.,  215;  anti- 
rentism  in  the  North,  293;  Yazoo 
land  fraud,  312;  debate  on  Sen.  Foot's 
res.  on  sale  of  public,  351  el  seq.; 
nature  of,  in  U.  S.,  opposed  to  seces 
sion,  391;  story  of  1. -grabbing  farmer, 
421;  remark  of  King  Harold  on  giant 
invader,  422.  See  also  CUBA; 
FLORIDA;  INDIANS;  LOUISIANA  PUR 
CHASE;  TECUMSEH;  TERRITORIES; 
TEXAS;  WAR,  MEXICAN.  Cf.  SLAVERY. 
LANE,  JOSEPH  [Ore.]:  b.  1811.  d.  1881; 
for  sketch  see  Vol.  II.;  elected  to  Sen., 
413. 


LANHAM,  CHARLES,  Amer.  author:  on 
Webster,  354. 

LANSING,  JOHN,  JR.  [N.  Y.J:  b.  1754,  d. 
1829;  M.  C.  1784-85;  in  Const.  Conv.; 
just.  sup.  ct.  N.  Y.  1790-98;  chief- 
just.  1798-1801;  chancellor  1801-14; 
regent  Univ.  of  N.  Y.  1814-29;  on 
elect,  of  Senators,  219,  221;  leaves 
Const.  Conv.,  225. 

LATHAM,  MILTON  SLOCUM  [Cal.] :  b. 
1827,  d.  1882;  sketch  of,  410  f.  n.; 
on  Pacific  R.  R.,  410 

LATIN-AMERICAN  REPUBLICS:  recog.  of, 
341,  342. 

LAUDERDALE,  JAMES  MAITLAND,  EARL 
OF,  Brit,  statesman:  on  Burke,  104. 

LAW:  trial  of  Writs  of  Assistance,  7 
el  seq.;  hearing  against  Stamp  Act, 
39;  trial  of  Americans  in  Eng.,  62,  82, 
98,  112;  colon,  prej.  against  lawyers, 
64;  Mass,  people  prevent  judges 
from  sitting,  83;  legal  fiction  that  King 
can  do  no  wrong,  81,  84,  85,  93,  97, 
114;  legal  rights  demanded  by  Cont. 
Cong.,  88;  Burke  on,  in  Amer.,  107, 
no,  in;  Brit.  Att'y-Gen.  would 
forfeit  Amer.  charters,  107;  principles 
of,  in  Va.  Bill  of  Rights,  136;  legal 
training  of  the  Fathers,  151;  M.  Hale 
and  Jefferson  on  legality  of  Chris 
tianity,  152;  William  and  Mary  a 
school  of,  164,  165;  Fed.  laws  should 
have  enforcing  power,  191;  witchcraft 
trial,  269;  case  of  Rom.  Cath.  church 
prop,  in  N.  Y.,  290;  Webster  re 
models  U.  S/  criminal  jurisprudence, 
353;  Benjamin  on  Personal  Prop 
erly,  411;  legal j  obstructions  to 
coercion  of  S.  C.,  415,  422;  juris, 
of  just,  of  peace,  419;  defense  of 
criminals,  420;  ultimate  change  of 
legislation  by  legal  opin.,  421.  See 
also  ALIEN  LAWS;  BLACKSTONE; 
BRIBERY;  CHARTERS;  CIVIL  RIGHTS; 
CONSTITUTION;  DARTMOUTH  COLLEGE 
CASE;  DRED  SCOTT  DECISION;  EX 
TRADITION;  FUGITIVE  SLAVE  LAW; 
HABEAS  CORPUS;  IMPEACHMENT; 
JUDICIARY;  JURY;  LESE  MAJESTE; 
LIBEL;  SEDITION;  SOMMERSETT;  WARE 
vs.  HILTON.  For  illustrations  of 
legal  qualities  see  sketches  and 
speeches  of  debaters. 

LAW,  COMMON,  in  Constitution:  debate 
on,  276,  278  el  seq. 

LAW,  CONSTITUTIONAL:  William  and 
Mary  a  school  of.  See  also  CONSTI 
TUTION;  KENT;  MARSHALL;  STORY. 

LAW,  INTERNATIONAL:  Dr.  Witherspoon 
an  authority  on,  164,  165;  "free  ships 
make  free  goods,"  249, .250;  rights  of 
aliens  under,  271;  continuous  voyage 


Index 


453 


Law.  International — Continued 
decision,  309.  See  also  BLOCKADE; 
Essex;  EUROPEAN  WAR  1914;  GENET; 
IMPRESSMENT;  NEUTRAL  RIGHTS; 
MONROE  DOCTRINE;  MISSISSIPPI 
RIVER;  PRIVATEERING;  SOVEREIGNTY; 
TREATIES;  VATTEL;  WAR. 

LAW,  PARLIAMENTARY:  device  of  Mass, 
town-meetings  to  evade  dissolution, 
107. 

LEE,  RICHARD  HENRY  [Va.]:  b.  1732,  d. 
1794;  sketch  of,  27;  supports  Henry's 
res.  on  Stamp  Act,  27;  sanguine  of 
reconcil.  with  Gt.  Brit.,  95;  on  com. 
of  armed_  defense  of  Va.f  119;  his 
resol.  for  indep.,  141  et  seq.,  156,  157; 
prevented  from  drafting  Dec.  of 
Ind.,  150;  Sen.  from  Va.,  236. 

LEMMON,  LEONARD,  Amer.  author:  on 
Ames,  230. 

LEONARD,  DANIEL  [Mass.]:  b.  1740,  d. 
1829;  grad.  Harvard;  legislator;  a 
Whig  at  first,  approves  Gov.  Hutch- 
inson's  course  in  1774;  mobbed; 
flees  to  Halifax  in  1776;  chief-just. 
Bermuda;  in  press  controv.  with  J. 
Adams  on  colon,  rights,  65. 

LESE  MAJESTE:  of  Pres.  J.  Adams, 
282. 

LESSING,  GOTTHOLD  EPHRAIM,  Germ, 
poet,  essayist,  dramatist:  inspired 
by  Burke,  102. 

LEVERETT,  SIR  JOHN  [Mass.]:  b.  Eng. 
1616,  d.  1679;  at  16  emigrated  to 
Boston;  goes  to  Eng.  1644;  Puritan 
officer  in  Eng.  Rev.;  returns  Boston; 
legisl.;  maj.-gen.;  dep.  gov.  1671-73; 
gov.  1673;  skilful  conduct  King 
Philip's  War;  knighted  1676;  on  navig. 
act,  13. 

LEXINGTON-CONCORD:  battle  of,  on 
April  19,  1775,  120,  129. 

LIBEL:  of  legislators,  278,  279,  280. 

LIBERTY:  see  CIVIL  RIGHTS;  PRESS; 
RELIGION. 

LIBERTY  PARTY:  ticket  of,  in  1848, 
403- 

LIEBER,  FRANCIS,  Germ.  Amer.  soldier 
and  publicist:  b.  Ger.  1800,  d.  1872; 
on  Webster,  357. 

LINCOLN,  ABRAHAM  [111.]:  b.  Ky.  1809, 
d.  1865;  i6th  Pres.;  for  sketch  see 
Vol.  II.;  his  "Spot  Res."  in  re  Mex. 
War,  and  Cooper  Union  speech,  iv.; 
comp.  with  Sam  Adams,  66;  on  Jeffer 
son,  155;  as  ideal  statesman,  308; 
paraphrases  Webster,  365;  in  Black 
Hawk  War,  396;  elect,  of,  as  Pres.  in 
1860  a  ground  for  secession,  388, 
392,  399,  405  et  seq.;  admirer  of  Baker, 
412;  refuses  to  recog.  Confed.  peace 
comm'n,  425;  admirer  of  Stephens, 

LINCOLN,  BENJAMIN  [Mass.]:  b.  1733, 
d.  1810;  statesman  and  maj.-gen.  in 
Rev.;  surrenders  Charleston,  S.  C., 
in  1780;  Sec.  War  1781-84;  forms 
Indian  treaties;  mem.  Soc.  Cincinnati; 


scientist;  suppresses  Shays *s  Rebel 
lion,  181. 

LITERATURE,  AMERICAN:  dates  from 
Stamp  Act,  35. 

Little  Democrat:  privateer  sent  out  by 
Genet,  250,  252. 

LIVINGSTON,  EDWARD  [N.  Y.  and  La.]: 
b.  1764,  d.  1836;  in  debate  on  Jay's 
Treaty,  254;  sketch  of,  259;  retort  of 
his  wife  to  Clay  on  oratorical  style  of 
C.  and  L.,  261;  opposes  breach  with 
France,  263;  in  debate  on  Alien  Laws, 
273  et  seq.;  on  Sedition  Law,  281; 
Sec.  of  State,  writes  proc.  against 
nullif.,  379. 

LIVINGSTON,  ROBERT  R.,  SR.  [N.  Y.] :  b. 
1718,  d.  1775;  judge  admir.  ct.  1760; 
just.  sup.  ct.  1763;  legislator;  greatest 
land-owner  in  N.  Y.;  in  Stamp  Act 
Cong.,  145. 

LIVINGSTON,  ROBERT  R.f  JR.  [N.  Y.]: 
b.  1746.  d.  1813;  law  partner  Jay,  91; 
sketch  of,  145;  opposes  Dec.  of  Ind. 
as  premature,  147;  on  com.  to  draft 
Dec.,  150;  on  com.  to  frame  Art.  of 
Confed.,  163;  negotiates  La.  Purchase, 
259.  300,  344. 

LOCKE,  JOHN,  Eng.  philosopher:  on 
equality  of  states  in  a  federation,  217. 

LODGE,  HENRY  CABOT  [Mass.]:  b.  1850; 
editor,  Sen.,  historian;  ed.  of  Federal" 
ist,  227  f.  n.;  on  Marshall,  234;  on 
Webster,  356. 

LOGIC:  see  DEBATE. 

"LONDON  ASSURANCE,"  play  by  Dion 
Boucicault:  quoted  by  Baker,  422. 

LONGFELLOW,  HENRY  WADSWORTH 
[Mass.],  poet:  b.  1807,  d.  1882;  on 
the  building  of  the  nation,  x. 

LOSSING,  BENSON  JOHN  [N.  Y.],  his 
torian:  b.  1813,  d.  1891;  on  Calhoun, 
331- 

Louis  XVI.,  King  of  France:  executed, 
242,  252. 

LOUISIANA:  adm.  Union  1811;  expedi 
tion  against,  formed  by  Genet,  244, 
252,  270,  299;  legal  procedure  of, 
codified  by  E.  Livingston,  259; 
Catholics  in,  not  opposed  by  Know- 
Nothings^  293;  admission  of,  opposed 
by  J.  Quincy  3d,  304;  secedes,  393; 
seizes  Fed.  forts,  etc.,  430;  in  organ,  of 
C.  S.  A.,  431. 

LOUISIANA  PURCHASE:  Jefferson's  view 
of  constitutionality  of,  257;  hist,  of, 
299  et  seq.;  ref.  to,  307;  upheld  as 
constitutional  by  J.  Randolph,  312. 

LOWNDES,  WILLIAM  JONES  [S.  CJ:  b. 
1782,  d.  1822;  grad.  Charleston  Coll.; 
lawyer;  planter;  State  legislator; 
M.  C.  1811-22;  nom.  for  Pres.  by 
S.  C.  legis.;  Clay  said  he  was  "the 
wisest  man  he  had  known  in  Cong."; 
upholds  War  of  1812  and  advocates 
strong  navy,  331. 

LOYALISTS:  see  TORIES. 

LYTTLETON,  EDWARD,  BARON:  b.  1589. 
d.  1645;  Chancellor;  Coke  upon,  151, 


M 


MACAULAY,  THOMAS  BABINGTON,  Eng.    I    MCCLELLAN,  GEORGE  BRINTON  [N.  J.]: 
historian  and  essayist:    on  Chatham,  b.  Phila.  1826,  d.  Orange,  N.  J.,  1885; 

44-  '        educ.    Univ.    Pa.    and    West    Point; 


454 


Index 


McClellan,  George  Brinton — Continued 
lieut.-engineers  in  Mex.  War;  in 
charge  surveys  in  Tex.,  Ore.,  and 
Wash.;  capt.  cavalry,  1855-  reports 
on  Crimean  War;  chief  eng.  111.  Cent. 
R.  R.  1857;  v.-pres.  111.  Cent.  1858; 
pres.  O.  and  Miss.  R.  R.  1859;  pres. 
St.  L.,  Mo.  and  Cinti.  R.  R.,  1861; 
gen.  in  Civil  War;  Dem.  cand.  for 
Pres.  1864;  eng.  N.  Y.  City  1870-72: 
gov.  N.  J.  1878-80;  mem.  bd.  mgrs.  of 
Nat.  Soldiers'  Home  1881-85;  re 
signs  pres.  111.  Cent.  R.  R.,  295. 

McCuLLocH,  BEN  [Tex.]:  b.  Tenn.  1811, 
d.  1862;  in  Tex.  revol.;  surveyor; 
M.  C.  of  Tex.  1839;  repels  Indian 
raids  1840-41;  State  legis.  and  maj.- 
gen.  militia  1846;  maj.  in  Mex.  War; 
in  Cal.  1849-52;  U.  S.  Marshal  Tex. 
1853-57;  comm'r  Utah  and  Ariz. 
1857-61;  brig.-gen.  C.  S.  A.;  killed 
at  Pea  Ridge,  Ark.,  Mch.  7,  1862; 
commands  C.  S.  A.  army  in  Tex.,  430. 

McGowAN,  MR.  [S.  C.],  State  legis.: 
on  secession,  390. 

MACKEY,  CHARLES,  poet  and  war  cor 
respondent:  b.  Scot.  1814,  d.  1889;  on 
J.  Adams,  146. 

MACKINTOSH,  SIR  JAMES,  Brit,  philos. 
and  statesman:  on  Burke,  105. 

MACON,  NATHANIEL  [N.  C.]:  b.  1757, 
d.  1837;  for  sketch  see  Vol.  II.;  on 
R.  Sherman,  151. 

MADISON,  JAMES  [Va.]:  b.  1751,  d.  1836; 
his  Report  on  the  Const.  Conv.,  iv., 
193;  founds  Amer.  Whig.  Soc.  at 
Princeton,  17  f.  n.;  on  G.  Mason, 
135;  on  relig.  freedom  in  Va.,  137, 
140,  141;  sketches  of,  138,  194;  comp. 
with  J.  Adams,  143;  student  at 
Princeton,  165;  on  plight  of  the  Con- 
fed.,  182;  on  P.  Webster,  191;  author 
of  Randolph  plan  of  Const.,  199; 
supports  Va.  plan,  210;  on  repres., 
213;  on  Senate,  215,  219,  221;  opposes 
report  of  comprom.  com.,  225;  joint 
author  of  Federalist,  226;  opposes 
Wash.'s  proc.  of  neut.,  228,  243; 
supports  ratif.  of  Const.,  231,  237; 
leader  of  Rep.  (Dem.)  party,  241, 
253;  on  misnomer  of  names  Fed.  and 
Anti-Fed.,  241  f.  n. ;  pol.  partnership 
with  Jefferson,  253;  in  debate  on 
Jay's  Treaty,  254;  opposes  Calhoun's 
construe,  of  Va.  Res.,  260,  371;  author 
of  Va.  Res.,  262,  282  et  seq.,  349; 
disagreement  with  Giles,  262;  his 
Report  on  the  Va.  Res.,  284,  406;  for. 
policy  of,  307;  as  Sec.  of  State  pro 
poses  Non-Intercourse  Act,  309;  his 
Commerc.  Res.  of  1794,  309  f.  n.; 
opp.  by  J.  Randolph,  312;  becomes 
Pres.,  324;  his  policy,  324;  in  War  of 
1812,  324  et  seq.;  asked  by  Pres. 
Washington  to  write  his  Farewell 
Message,  340  f.  n.;  on  nature  of  the 
Union,  400. 

MAGNA  CHARTA:  see  CONSTITUTION, 
BRITISH. 

MAGOFFIN,  BERIAH  [Ky:]:  b.  1815,  d. 
1885;  grad.  Center  College  and  (in 
law)  Transylvania  Univ.;  State 
senator  1850;  gov.  1859-63;  refuses 
to  call  conv.  on  secession,  391. 


MAGOON,  ELIAS  LYMAN:  b.  N.  H.  1810, 
d.  Phila.  1886;  preacher,  author  of 
works  on  eloquence;  on  Ames,  230. 

MAINE:  adm.  Union  1820;  dispute  over 
boundary  of,  with  Gt.  Brit.,  259. 

MAJORITY,  rule  of:  minority  rights,  174, 
218;  Banks  on,  297;  Clay  on,  377; 
Webster  on,  386;  Wigfall  on,  407. 

MANSFIELD,  WILLIAM  MURRAY,  EARL 
OF,  Brit,  statesman:  b.  1705,  d.  1793; 
defeated  in  land  case  by  P.  Randolph, 
29;  sketch  of,  51;  on  supremacy  of 
Parl.,  53  et  seq.;  on  Hutchinson,  73, 
79;  on  identity  of  external  and 
internal  taxes,  88. 

MANUFACTURES:  see  INDUSTRY. 

MARCH,  C.  W.,  journalist:  describes 
setting  of  Webster-Hay ne  debate,  362. 

MARINE,  MERCHANT,  AMERICAN:  Gt. 
Brit,  excludes  from  W.  I.,  178;  voting 
by  property  interest  in  ships,  222. 
See  also  EMBARGO;  IMPRESSMENT; 
NAvy. 

MARSHALL,  JOHN  [Va.J:  b.  1755,  d. 
1835;  comp.  with  J.  Adams,  143; 
pupil  of  Wythe,  146;  supports  ratif.  of 
Const.,  231,  234;  sketch  of,  232: 
envoy  to  France,  266;  Fed.  intend 
to  seat  him  as  Pres.  in  1801,  287. 

MARTIN,  JOSIAH:  b.  1737,  d.  1786; 
roy.  gov.  N.  C.  I77I-75;  denounces 
Mecklenburg  res.,  124. 

MARTIN,  LUTHER  [Md.]:  b.  1748,  d. 
1826;  sketch  of,  198;  on  Senate,  in 
Cons.  Conv.,  217,  223. 

MARYLAND:  instructs  del.  in  Cong,  on 
Dec.  of  Ind.,  148,  150;  advocates  Fed. 
ownership  of  western  lands,  175; 
signs  Art.  of  Confed.,  176;  conflict 
with  Va.  over  interstate  com.,  183; 
votes  by  counties,  220;  ratines  Const., 
228;  adopts  common  law,  279;  carried 
by  Know-Nothings,  290,  291;  gov.  of, 
refuses  to  call  secession  conv.,  391. 

MASON,  GEORGE  [Va.]:  b.  1726,  d.  1792; 
drafts  Va.  Bill  of  Rights,  134; 
sketches  of,  134,  194;  supports  Va. 
plan  of  Const.,  211;  in  debate  on 
ratif.  of  Const.,  231. 

MASON,  JEREMIAH  [N.  H.]:  b.  Ct.,  1768, 
d.  1848;  grad.  Yale;  practiced  law 
N.  H.;  atty.-gen.  N.  H.  1802;  U.  S. 
Sen.  1813-17;  State  legis.;  revises 
State  code;  pres.  Portsmouth  branch 
of  U.  S.  Bank;  contest  over  his  re 
moval  inaugurates  Pres.  Jackson's 
war  on  the  Bank;  legal  opponent  of 
Webster,  352;  Webster  ascribed  his 
legal  training  to  this  contest;  he  said: 
"The  characteristics  of  Mason's 
mind  were  real  greatness,  strength, 
and  sagacity.  He  was  great  through 
strong  sense  and  sound  judgment." 

MASON,  JOHN  YOUNG  [Va.]:  b.  1799.  d. 
1859;  grad.  Univ.  of  N.  C.;  adm.  bar 
1819;  State  legis.;  M.  C.  1831-37; 
chm.  com.  on  for.  aff. ;  U.  S.  dist. 
judge;  Sec.  of  Navy  1844,  1846-49; 
Atty.-Gen.  1844;  min.  to  France 
1853-59;  in  Ostend  conference,  296 
f.  n. 

"MASSACHUSETTENSIS":  pen-name  of 
Daniel  Leonard,  65. 

MASSACHUSETTS:  violates  nav.  acts,  3; 


Index 


455 


Massachusetts — Continued 

composition  of  colon,  legis.,  8  f.  n.; 
opposes  Stamp  Act,  20,  33;  in  con 
trov.  with  Parl.,  57  et  seq.;  assembly 
dissolved  by  Gov.  Gage,  85;  provin. 
conv.,  95;  instructs  Cong,  to  declare 
indep.,  134;  demands  repres.  in  Cong. 
by  popul.,  172,  174;  Burke  on,  108; 
Shays's  Rebell.  in,  180;  debate  on 
Const.,  288  et  seq.;  ratifies  Const. 
231;  Repub.  (Dem.)  resol.  of,  285; 
carried  by  Know-Nothings,  290,  294; 
proposes  Hartford  Conv.,  337;  rep. 
m  Conv.,  337;  eulogy  of,  by  Webster, 
362;  endorses  John  Brown's  raid, 
420;  personal  liberty  laws  in,  421. 
See  also  BOSTON;  CHARLESTOWN; 
FALMOUTH;  NEW  ENGLAND;  PLY 
MOUTH;  SUFFOLK. 

MATHEWS,  WILLIAM,  American  author: 
on  Jefferson,  154;  on  Webster,  357. 

MAURICE,  PRINCE  OF  ORANGE:  b.  1567, 
d.  1625:  on  character  of  Dutch, 

MECKLENBURG  [N.  C.]  DECLARATION  OF 
INDEPENDENCE:  controv.  over,  122 
et  seq. 

MEDICINE:  achievements  of  Dr.  Rush, 
166;  in  army  of  Rev.,  166;  yel 
low  fever  epidemic  in  N.  Y.  City, 
261. 

MELBOURNE,  WILLIAM  LAMB,  VIS 
COUNT,  Eng.  statesman:  on  wisdom 
of  fools,  308  f.  n. 

MEXICAN  WAR:  see  WAR  WITH  MEXICO. 

MIFFLIN,  THOMAS  [Pa.J:  b.  1744,  d. 
1800;  grad.  Phila  Coll.;  merchant; 
State  legis.;  in  Cont.  Cong. ;  discards 
Quakerism  to  enter  Rev.;  quart. -m. 
gen.  and  maj.-gen.;  Pres.  Cong.  1783; 
Speaker  Pa.  legis.  1785;  deleg.  Const. 
Conv.;  Pres.  Pa.  1788-90;  Gov.  1790- 
99;  in  Pa.  leg.  1799-1800;  as  Gov. 
remonstrates  against  Genet's  acts, 
250. 

MILITARISM:  see  ARMY;  CIVIL  RIGHTS; 
COERCION. 

MILITIA:  SEE  ARMY. 

MILLER,  MARION  MILLS  [N.  Y.]:  b. 
Ohio,  1864;  grad.  Princeton  1886; 
instruc.  Eng.  and  Oratory  there  1887- 
92;  author;  ed.  of  Great  Debates  in 
Amer.  Hist.,  vi.;  of  American  Debate, 
vii. 

MINORITY:  see  MAJORITY. 

MIRABEAU,  GABRIEL  HONORE  DE 
RIQUETI,  COMTE  DE,  Fr.  statesman: 
on  Franklin,  49. 

MISSISSIPPI:  adm.  Union  1817;  Yazoo 
land  fraud  in,  312;  secession  move 
ment  in,  389;  secedes,  393;  in  organ, 
of  C.  S.  A.,  431. 

MISSISSIPPI  RIVER:  navigation  of, 
controv.  with  Spain  over,  266,  269. 

MISSOURI:  adm.  Union  1821;  its  invalid 
secession,  392. 

MISSOURI  COMPROMISE:  repeal  of,  opp. 
by  Know-Nothings,  291;  Clay  leading 
spirit  in,  327;  acceptance  of,  by  South, 
estops  secession,  419;  restoration  of, 
proposed  by  Crittenden,  425. 


MOLASSES  ACT:  'by  Parl.,  4,  7;  Otis 
on,  13;  made  perpetual,  19. 

MONARCHY:  leaning  toward,  under 
Confed.,  182,  185.  See  also  CON 
STITUTION,  BRITISH;  GEORGE  III.; 
MONROE  DOCTRINE. 

MONEY:  gov't  by  purchase,  Burke  on, 
106,  112;  in  the  Rev.,  149;  issue  of, 
Dr.  Rush  recommends  States  to 
resign  to  Fed.  gov't,  186;  Pinckney 
recommends  same,  200;  paper,  of  the 
Confed.,  211;  exclusive  coinage  of,  by 
Fed.  gov't,  215,  365;  redemption  of 
Cont.  currency,  247;  Genet  on  U.  S. 
as  a  dollar-worshiping  country, 
249,  253;  in  U.  S.  Treasury  a  corrupt 
ing  influence,  Hayne  on,  351.  See 
also  BANKING;  FINANCE. 

MONOPOLY:  cutting  price  a  step  toward, 
81;  of  Amer.  commerce  by  Gt.  Brit., 
92.  See  also  COMMERCE;  INDUSTRY. 

MONROE.JAMES,  [Va.J,  sth  Pres.:  b.i758, 
d.  1831;  pupil  of  Wythe,  146;  opp. 
ratif.  of  Const.,  231;  negotiator  of  La. 
Purchase,  301;  min.  to  Gt.  Brit., 
neg9tiates  abortive  treaty,  318; 
advises  recog.  of  Lat.-Amer.  republics, 
343;  sketch  of,  343. 

MONROE  DOCTRINE:  incept^n  of,  in 
case  of  Quebec,  101;  anticipated  by 
T.  Paine,  125;  by  J.  Adams,  132; 
opposed  by  Giles,  262;  Pres.  Jefferson 
on  union  with  Gt.  Brit,  against  Fr. 
domination  in  Amer.,  300;  culmina 
tion  of  policy  for  nat.  defense,  340; 
based  on  Wash.'s  Farewell  Address, 
340;  Clay  on  leadership  of  U.  S.  in 
West.  Hemis.,  342;  hist,  of,  343,  345 
et  seq.  See  also  LATIN-AMERICAN 
REPUBLICS. 

MORLEY,  JOHN,  Eng.  statesman:  on 
Burke,  102. 

MORRIS,  GOUVERNEUR  [Pa.  and  N.  Y.]: 
b.  1752,  d.  1816;  sketch  of,  195;  on 
Cong.,  in  Const.  Conv.,  223;  min.  to 
France,  asks  recall  of  Genet,  251. 

MORRIS,  ROBERT  [Pa.]:  b.  Eng.  1734,  d. 
1806;  merchant,  Phila;  opposes  Stamp 
Act;  signs  non-import,  agreem.;  in 
Cont.  Cong,  during  Rev.;  finances 
the  war;  U.  S.  sup't  finance  1781- 
83;  organizes  Bank  of  North  Amer.; 
State  legis.;  mem.  Const.  Conv.; 
U.  S.^Sen.  1789-95;  failed  in  business; 
impris.  for  debt;  bus.  assoc.  of  G. 
Morris,  196. 

MUHLENBERG,      FREDERICK     AUGUSTUS 

CONRAD:  [Pa.],  b.  1750,  d.  1801;  Luth. 

pastor;  patriot  in  Rev.;  M.  C.  1779- 

80;    1789-97;    Speaker    in    State   leg. 

and    Cong.;   casts   deciding   vote   for 

approp.  for  Jay's  Treaty,  254. 
MULLINS,  MR.  [S.  C.],  State  legislator: 

on  secession,  390. 
MURRAY,    WILLIAM    VANS     [Md.J:    b. 

1762,    d.    1803;    sketch    of,    254;    in 

debate  on  Jay's  Treaty,  254;  min.  to 

France,  268. 

MUTINY  ACT:  by  Brit,  gov't,  58. 
MYERS,   GUSTAVUS   [N.  Y.J:  historian: 

his  History  of  Tammany  Hall,  63  f.  n. 


456 


Index 


NAPOLEON  I.,  BONAPARTE,  first  consul 
and  emperor  France:  invasion  of  Eng., 
encouraged  by  T.  Paine,  127;  his 
decrees  against  neutral  commerce, 
260,  319,  324;  treaty  with  in,  1801, 
268;  supreme  on  land,  308.  See  also 
FRANCE;  LOUISIANA  PURCHASE; 
NEUTRAL  RIGHTS. 

NATION:  see  CONSTITUTION;  SOVER 
EIGNTY. 

NATIVISM:  see  ALIEN  LAWS;  AMERICAN 
PROTECTIVE  ASS'N;  CATHOLICS; 
KNOW-NOTHINGS;  SEDITION. 

NATURALIZATWN:  Cong,  to  control, 
200;  frauds  in,  271,  288;  debates  on, 
ref.  to,  297  f.  n.;  easy,  denounced  by 
Hart.  Conv.,  338.  See  also  KOSZTA; 
NATIVISM. 

NATURAL  RIGHTS:  J.  Otis  on,  n  et  seq.; 
Genet  on,  248;  A.  Clayton  on,  377, 
378.  See  also  CIVIL  RIGHTS;  IN 
DEPENDENCE. 

NAVIGATION  ACTS:  against  the  colonies, 
2-15;  Burke  on,  109.  See  also  COM 
MERCE;  FISHING;  INDUSTRY. 

NAVY:  U.  S.,  in  Rev.,  132;  control  of,  by 
Cong.,  200;  interest  in,  by  E.  Living 
ston,  260;  Dep't  of,  organized,  267; 
Jefferson  on  sea-power,  300;  Brit., 
supremacy  of,  308,  315,  316;  U.  S., 
in  War  of  1812,  331,  332,  336;  interest 
in,  by  Webster,  352.  See  also  BLOCK 
ADE;  EMBARGO;  IMPRESSMENT;  LAW, 
INTERNATIONAL;  NEUTRAL  RIGHTS; 
PRIVATEERING;  WAR  OF  REVOLUTION; 
WAR  OF  1812. 

NEGROES:  C.  Attucks,  a  mulatto,  in 
Boston  Massacre,  75;  Crittenden 
opposes  enlistment  of,  in  U.  S.  Army, 
424.  See  also  SLAVERY. 

NEUTRAL  RIGHTS:  Washington's  proc. 
of  neut.,  227,  228,  242,  243,  248,  250; 
"armed  neut.,"  250;  decrees  of 
Napoleon  I.,  260,  318,  319,  324,  vio 
lated  by  Gt.  Brit.,  309,  3i8,  319. 
See  also  EMBARGO;  IMPRESSMENT; 
LAW,  INTERNATIONAL. 

NEWCASTLE-UNDER-LYME,  THOMAS  PEL- 
HAM,  DUKE  OF,  Brit,  premier :opp. 
by  Chatham,  43. 

NEW  ENGLAND:  Dominion  of,  under 
Andros,  214  f.  n.;  opposes  embargo, 
223,  323,  373;  union  of  Pres.  and 
Cong,  churches  in,  see  DWIGHT. 
See  also  CONNECTICUT;  HARTFORD 
CONVENTION;  MAINE;  MASSACHU 
SETTS;  NEW  HAMPSHIRE-  RHODE 
ISLAND;  STAMP  ACT;  VERMONT; 
WRITS  OF  ASSISTANCE. 

NEW  HAMPSHIRE:  in  Const.  Conv., 
192;  ratifies  Const.,  237;  carried  by 
Know-Nothings,  290;  in  Hartford 
Conv.,  337,  352;  loses  Dartmouth 
College  case,  353- 

NEW  JERSEY:  opposition  in,  to  Stamp 
Act,  33;  vote  of,  on  Dec.  of  Ind.,  150; 
repr.  in  Annapolis  Conv.,  185;  plan 
of  Const.,  by,  debate  on,  201  et  seq.; 
ratifies  Const.,  228. 

NEW  ORLEANS:  see  LOUISIANA. 

NEWSPAPERS:  see  PRESS. 

NEW  YORK  CITY:  Congress  meets  in, 
1789-90,  239;  occupation  of,  by 


Brit.,  149  f.  n.;  naturalization  frauds 
in,  288;  epid.  yellow  fever  in,  261. 

NEW  YORK  STATE:  protests  against 
Stamp  Act,  20;  against  royal  troops, 
30,  60;  vote  of,  on  Dec.  of  Ind.,  150, 
iS7i  158;  cedes  western  lands  to  U.  S., 
176;  opposes  Fed.  tariff,  180;  recom 
mends  Const.  Conv.,  183;  repr.  in 
Annapolis  Conv.,  185;  under  Andros, 
214  f.  n.;  property  qual.  in,  for  voting, 
220;  ratifies  Const.,  227,  238,  239, 
407;  inaug.  of  Washington  at,  239, 
311;  controv.  over  Catholic  church 
property  in,  290;  carried  by  Know- 
Nothings,  290. 

NICHOLAS,  GEORGE  [Ky.]:  b.  Va.  1755, 
d.  1799;  mem.  Ky.  const,  conv.  1792; 
first  att'y-gen.  Ky.;  corresp.  Jeffer 
son  in  re  Ky.  Res. ;  teacher  of  Grundy , 
381. 

NICHOLAS,  JOHN  [Va.]:  b.  1761,  d.  1819; 
sketch  of,  278;  on  sedition  law, 
278. 

NICHOLAS,  ROBERT  CARTER  [Va.]:  b. 
1715,  d.  1780;  opposes  Henry's  milit. 
res.,  117;  sketch  of,  118;  father  of 


John  Nicholas,  278. 

IXON,  JOHN  [Pa.]:  b.   1733, 

merch.  in  Phila.;  lieut.  in  French  war; 


1733,  d.   1808; 


signs  non-import,  agreem.;  mem. 
intercol.  com.  of  corresp.;  in  provinc. 
conv.  1774-75;  col.  in  Rev.;  chm.  com. 
of  safety;  on  navy  board;  director  of 
army  supplies;  officer  Bank  of  N. 
Amer.;  reads  Dec.  of  Ind.  to  people, 
159. 

NON-CONSUMPTION       AGREEMENT:       86. 

See  also  NON-IMPORTATION;  TEA. 

NON-IMPORTATION       AGREEMENT:         by 

Amer.  merchants,  33,  34,  60,  86;  by 
Congress,  89;  by  Va.,  134,  135. 

NON-INTERCOURSE  ACT:  in  Jefferson's 
adm.,  308;  opposed  by  J.  Randolph, 
315;  Madison's  commer.  res.  of  1794, 
309  f.  n.;  act  of  1809,  323  et  seq. 

NORFOLK,  VA.:  burned  by  Brit.,  129. 

NORTH,  FREDERICK  LORD,  EARL  OP 
GUILFORD,  Brit,  premier:  b.  1732,  d. 
1792;  ministry  of,  74  et  seq.;  sketch  of, 
74;  his  cool  reception  of  J.  Quincy  2d, 
62,  96;  demands  crushing  Amer.,  99, 
100;  his  plan  of  conciliation,  101  et 
seq.;  it  is  criticized  by  Burke,  112  et 
seq. 

NORTH  CAROLINA:  proposes  Amer. 
Indep.,  134;  ratifies  Const.,  239; 
exped.  in,  against  Fla.,  252;  postpones 
secession,  392;  seizes  Fed.  forts,  etc., 
430;  secedes  May  20,  1861.  See  also 
MECKLENBURG. 

"NOVANGLUS":  pen-name  of  J.  Adams 
in  controv.  with  Leonard,  65. 

NOVA  SCOTIA:  see  CANADA. 

NUGENT,  MR.,  mem.  Parl.:  defends 
taxation  of  Amer.,  46. 

NULLIFICATION:  Pres.  Jackson's  proc. 
against,  written  by  E.  Livingston, 
260;  in  Ky.  Res.,  284;  opp.  by 
Grundy,  332;  in  Ga.  and  S.  C.,  hist. 
of,  348  et  seq.;  stern  repression  of,  by 
Pres.  Jackson,  422;  Jeff.  Davis  on 
distinction  between,  and  secession, 
427. 


Index 


457 


OFFICERS:  recall  of,  advocated  by 
Drayton,  130;  rotation  of,  in  Va.  Bill 
of  Rights,  136,  Rush  on,  187;  P.  Web 
ster  on,  191;  recall  of  judges,  288; 
oath  of,  Webster  on,  368;  Pres.  Tyler 
removes  Whigs,  402;  removal  of,  in 
C.  S.  A.  Const.,  431.  See  also  RAN 
DOLPH,  JOHN,  IST. 

OGDEN,  ROBERT  [N.  J.]:  b.  1716,  d. 
1787;  colonial  legis.;  upholds  Stamp 
Act,  30;  burned  in  effigy  for  this; 
chm.  Elizabethtown  com.  of  safety 
1776. 

OHIO:  adm.  Union  1801-02;  compared 
with  Ga.,  433. 

OLIVER,  ANDREW  [Mass.]:  b.  1706,  d. 
I774I  grad.  Harvard;  colon,  legis.;  in 
Albany  Indian  conv.  1748;  sec'y 
Mass.  1756;  distributor  of  stamps, 
house  raided,  38;  lieut.-gov.  1770; 
abortive  petition  to  remove,  81. 

ONIS,  Luis  DE,  Spanish  diplomat:  b. 
1769,  d.  1830;  min.  to  U.  S.;  opposes 
recog.  of  Lat.-Amer.  republics,  342. 

ORANGE,  PRINCE  OF:  see  MAURICE. 

ORATORY:  Rollin  on  eloquence,  28; 
Lamartine  on  revolutionary,  144; 
Thucydides  model  for  Webster,  157; 
Addison  model  of  style  of  Fathers, 
154;  ironic  denial  by  Webster,  363; 
amplification  used  by  Webster,  376. 


For  illustrations  of  the  art  of,  see 
sketches  and  speeches  of  debaters. 

OREGON:  adm.  Union  1859;  dispute 
over  boundary  of,  with  Gt.  Brit., 
259,  346. 

ORR,  JAMES  LAWRENCE  [S.  C.]:  b.  1822, 
d.  1873;  grad.  Univ.  of  Va.;  lawyer 
and  editor;  State  legis.;  denounced 
nullif.;  M.  C.  1849-59;  Unionist 
in  Southern  Rights  Conv.  1851; 
opposed  Clay  Comp.  and  Know- 
Nothings;  reformed  Indian  policy: 
Speaker  1857;  opposed  secession  or 
S.  C.  1860;  comm'r  to  Fed.  gov't, 
427;  col.  and  Sen.  in  C.  S.  A.;  gov. 
S.  C.  1866-68;  circuit  judge  S.  C. 
1870-72;  min.  Russia  1872-73. 

OSTEND:  conference  at,  on  annex. 
Cuba,  296. 

OTIS,  HARRISON  GRAY  [Mass.]:  b.  1765, 
d.  1838;  sketch  of,  263;  supports 
breach  with  France,  263;  upholds 
Alien  Laws,  273,  274;  upholds  Sedi 
tion  Law,  279. 

OTIS,  JAMES  [Mass.]:  b.  1725,  d.  1783; 
pleads  against  Writs  of  Assist.,  8  et 
seq.;  sketch  of,  9;  in  Stamp  Act  Cong., 
31;  argues  against  Act,  38;  on  Parl.'s 
right  to  govern  Amer.,  56;  advocates 
colon,  repr.  in  Parl.,  56;  controv.  with 
Lord  Hillsboro,  60;  Choate  on,  144. 


PACIFISM:  see  PEACE. 

PACIFIC  RAILROAD:  survey  of  routes  for, 
397;  as  a  bond  of  Union,  410;  sup 
ported  by  Rep.  and  opposed  by  Dem. 
party,  410. 

"PACiFicus":  pen-name  of  Hamilton 
in  defense  of  Wash.'s  proc.  of  neut., 
227,  243- 

PAINE,  ROBERT  TREAT  [Mass.]:  b. 
1731,  d.  1814;  M.  C.  1874-78;  atty.- 
gen.  Mass.  1780-90;  judge  sup.  ct. 
Mass.  1790-1804;  prosecutor  of  sol 
diers  in  Bost.  Massacre,  77;  del.  to 
Cong.,  85. 

PAINE,  THOMAS  [Pa.]:  b.  Eng.  1737,  d. 
1809;  comp.  with  Franklin,  49;  his 
deism,  62;  comp.  with  Dickinson,  93; 
proposes  Amer.  indep.,  124;  sketch 
of,  124;  on  rel.  freedom,  138. 

PANAMA:  Pan-Amer.  Cong,  at,  314; 
R.  R.,  Baker  interested  in,  413. 

PARIS,  TREATY  OF:  see  TREATY  OF 
PARIS. 

PARKER,  THEODORE:  b.  1810,  d.  1860; 
for  sketch  see  Vol.  II.;  tribute  to  J. 
Adams,  142,  143. 

PARKINSON,  MR.,  English  writer:  anti- 
Amer.  book  of,  307  f.  n. 

PARLIAMENT:  supremacy  of,  47  et  seq.; 
contest  with  Cong.,  84  et  seq.  See 
also  CONSTITUTION,  BRITISH;  GREAT 
BRITAIN. 

PARLIAMENTARY  LAW:  see  LAW,  PAR 
LIAMENTARY. 

PARTISANSHIP:  see  POLITICS. 


PARTON,  JAMES,  Amer.  historian:  b. 
Eng.,  1822,  d.  Mass.  1891;  on  Cal- 
houn,  329. 

PARTRIDGE,  WILLIAM  ORDWAY  [N.  Y,], 
Amer.  sculptor:  his  statue  of  Hamil 
ton,  239  f.  n. 

PATERSON,  WILLIAM  [N.  J.I:  b.  1745,  d. 
1806;  sketch  of,  197 ;  his  plan  of  Const., 
201,  204,  226. 

PATRIOTISM:  Webster  on,  353,  369;  of 
C.  C.  Pinckney,  267;  of  Dix,  394- 
See  also  ARMY;  CIVIL  RIGHTS;  DE 
FENSE,  NATIONAL;  INDEPENDENCE; 
NAVY;  UNION;  WAR. 

PATRONAGE:  see  POLITICS. 

PEACE:  proposals  of,  by  Brit.,  131; 
Franklin,  peacemaker  in  Const. 
Conv.,  219;  vs.  Preparedness,  308; 
J.  Randolph  as  a  pacifist,  311,  31$ 
et  seq.;  comm'n  on,  by  C.  S.  A., 
425,  433.  See  also  COMPROMISE; 
CONCILIATION;  MISSOURI  COMPRO 
MISE;  TREATIES.  Cf.  DEFENSE,  NA 
TIONAL;  WAR. 

PELHAM,     HENRY:     see      NEWCASTLE- 

UNDER-LYME. 

PENDLETON,  EDMUND  [Va.]:  b.  1721,  d. 
1803;  opposes  Henry's  milit.  res., 
117;  sketch  of,  118;  supports  ratif.  of 
Const.,  231. 

PENNSYLVANIA:  opposes  Gt.  Brit., 
115;  vote  on  Dec.  of  Ind.,  148,  150, 
157;  demands  repr.  in  Cong,  by  popu 
lation,  172,  174;  repr.  in  Annapolis 
Conv.,  185;  ratifies  Const.,  228; 


458 


Index 


Pennsylvania — Continued 

Repub.  (Dem.)  resol.  of,  285;  declares 

Tariff  of   1828  constit.,  366;   militia 

suppresses  Whiskey  insurrection,  414. 

See  also  PHILADELPHIA;  PITTSBURGH. 
PENNSYLVANIA,  UNIV.   OF:  founded  by 

Franklin,  48. 

PEOPLE:  rule  of,  see  DEMOCRACY. 
PERSONAL  LIBERTY  LAWS:  see  FUGITIVE 

SLAVE  LAW. 
PETITION,    RIGHT    OF:    demanded    by 

Cont.    Cong.,   88;  J.   Q.   Adams  and 

Gushing  defenders  of,  427.     See  also 

CIVIL  RIGHTS. 
PETTIT,  JOHN  [Ind.]:  b.  1807,  d.  1877; 

lawyer;  M.  C.  1843-49;  Sen.  1853-55; 

J'udge  sup.  ct.  Ind.,  1870;  calls  Dec.  of 
nd.  "a  self-evident  lie,"  155. 

PHILADELPHIA:  Cont.  Cong,  meets  in  87; 
merchants  of,  appeal  to  London 
merchants  against  taxes,  73;  Brit. 
occupy,  174;  reception  to  Genet,  245; 
frauds  in  naturalization,  271,  288. 

PHILE,  PHILIP:  see  FEYLES. 

PHILIP  OF  MACEDON:  destroys  Amphic- 
tyonic  council,  211. 

PHILOSOPHICAL  SOCIETY,  AMERICAN: 
founded,  166. 

PICKENS,  FRANCIS  WILKINSON  [S.  C.J: 
b.  1805,  d.  1869;  educ.  at  S.  C. 
College;  lawyer;  State  legis.,  nullifi- 
cationist;  M.  C.  1834-43;  State  sen.; 
opposes  "Bluff ton  movement"  for 
secession;  del.  to  Nashville  conv. 
1850-51;  min.  to  Russia  1858-60; 
gov.  S.  C.  1860-62;  demands  surrender 
Ft.  Sumter,  430. 

PIERCE,  FRANKLIN,  [N.  H.J:  b.  1804,  d. 
1869;  I4th  Pres.;  tor  sketch,  see  Vol. 
II.;  opposed  by  Know-Nothings,  291; 
debate  with  Hale  on  annex.  Tex.,  402. 

PIERCE,  WILLIAM  [GaJ:  b.  1740,  d. 
1806;  aide  of  Gen.  Greene  in  Rev.; 
M.  C.  1786-87;  del.  Const.  Conv.; 
character  sketches  by,  of  delegates  to 
Conv.,  193. 

PILGRIMS:  landing  of,  Webster  on,  353, 
356. 

PINCKNEY,  CHARLES  [S.  C.]:  b.  1758.  d. 
1824;  his  plan  of  Const.,  191,  213, 
215,  226;  sketch  of,  198;  min.  to 
Spain;  negotiations  on  La.  Purchase, 
301. 

PINCKNEY,  CHARLES  COTESWORTH 
[S.  C.]:  b.  1746,  d.  i825;'sketch  of, 
198;  supports  Va.  plan  of  Const., 
207;  on  Senate,  223;  envoy  to  France, 
266;  3d  in  command  of  army  in 
breach  with  France,  267. 

PINCKNEY,  CHARLES  COTESWORTH 
[S.  C.] :  grandson  of  Thomas  Pinckney ; 
clergyman;  on  Calhoun,  330. 

PINCKNEY,  THOMAS  [S.  C.]:  b.  1750,  d. 
1828;  supports  breach  with  France, 
263 ;  sketch  of,  265 ;  envoy  to  Spain,  se 
cures  navig.  of  Miss,  river  for  U.S.,  299. 

PINKNEY,  WILLIAM  [Md.l:  b.  1764,  d. 
1822;  for  sketch  see  Vol. II.;  negotiates 
abortive  treaty  with  Gt.  Brit.,  318, 

PITKIN,    TIMOTHY    [Ct.]:    b.    1766,    d. 

1847;   lawyer;    M.    C.    1805-19;    his 

Polit.  Hist,  of  U.  S.,  v. 
PITT,  WILLIAM,  SR.:  see  CHATHAM. 


PITTSBURGH:  citizens  of,  protest  against 
removal  of  arms  from  arsenal,  429. 

Pius  IX.,  POPE:  sends  cardinal  to  ad 
just  controv.  in  N.  Y.  over  R.  C. 
prop.,  290;  Know-Nothings  object 
to  his  temp,  sover.,  296. 

PLYMOUTH,  MASS.:  protests  against 
Stamp  Act,  33. 

POCAHONTAS,  Indian  princess:  ancestor 
of  J.  Randolph,  310. 

POLITICAL  ECONOMY:  Dr.  Witherspoon 
authority  on,  169;  economic  view  of 
slavery,  388,  421.  See  also  BANKING; 
COMMERCE;  INDUSTRY;  INTERNAL 
IMPROVEMENTS;  FINANCE;  LABOR; 
LAND;  MONEY;  TARIFF;  TAXATION; 
WEBSTER,  P. 

POLITICAL  SCIENCE:  Dr.  Witherspoon 
teacher  of,  1 64.  See  also  CIVIL  RIGHTS ; 
CONSTITUTION;  POLITICS;  REPRESEN 
TATION;  SOVEREIGNTY. 

POLITICS:  social  boycott  against  "stamp 
pimps,"  33;  effectiveness  of  riots,  37; 
electioneering  oppos.  by  Madison, 
140;  log-rolling,  221  f.  n.;  E.  Gerry  on 
demagogy  in  U.  S.,  216;  patronage  a 
nationalizing  influence,  224;  types  of 
Southern  fire-eaters,  270;  campaign 
of  education  by  Jefferson  and  Madi 
son,  285;  Pres.  Adams  appoints 
"midnight  judges,"  287;  Barry  on 
Northern  "isms,"  293;  Banks  on 
bossism,  295 ;  knifing  of  Cass  for  Pres. 
by  Catholics,  297;  the  young  man  in, 
304,  325,331;  "doughfaces,"  313;  use 
of  patronage  by  x^res.,  317,  338;  Wash 
ington  opposes  partisanship,34o;  Pres. 
Tyler  removes  office-holders,  402; 
See  also  ADAMS,  SAMUEL,  SR.;  CAUCUS; 
COALITION;  DEMOCRATIC  PARTY; 
FEDERALIST  PARTY;  GERRYMANDER; 
KNOW-NOTHING;  LIBERTY  PARTY; 
NATURALIZATION,  FRAUDS  IN;  QUIDS; 
REPUBLICAN  PARTY;  TAMMANY  HALL; 
WHIG  PARTY.  Cf.  STATESMANSHIP 

POLK,  JAMES  K.  [Tenn.],  nth  Pres.:  for 
sketch  see  Vol.  II.;  campaign  of,  ref. 
to,  396;  oppos.  by  Whigs  on  Mex. 
War,  432. 

POLLARD,  EDWARD  ALBERT  [Va.]:  b. 
1828,  d.  1872;  Southern  historian;  on 
value  of  Fed.  prop,  taken  by  C.  S.  A., 
430. 

POLYGAMY:  defended  on  princ.  of  relig. 
lib.,  138  f.  n. 

POPE:  see  Pius  IX. 

POPULAR  SOVEREIGNTY:  opp.  by  South 
ern  statesmen,  398,  411;  proposed 
by  Sen.  Hunter  in  Territories,  425. 
Cf.  SOVEREIGNTY. 

POPULATION:  Burke  on  prevention  of, 
109;  as  basis  for  apportioning  revenue, 
179.  See  also  REPRESENTATION. 

PORTER,  PETER  BUEL  [N.  Y.]:  b.  1773, 
d.  1844;  grad.  Yale;  lawyer;  M.  C. 
1809-13;  maj.-gen.  War  of  1812; 
M.  C.  1815-16;  Sec.  War  1828-29; 
advocates  war  with  Gt.  Brit.,  332. 

POST-OFFICE,  FEDERAL:  Dr.  Rush  on, 
1 88;  provided  for  in  Pinckney  plan 
of  Const.,  200. 

POWELL,  LAZARUS  W.  [Ky.]:  b.  1812,  d. 
1867;  sketch  of,  409  f.  n.;  on  concil. 
S.  C.,  409. 


Index 


459 


PREPAREDNESS:  Burke  on  Brit,  lack  of, 
in  Amer.  Rev.,  114;  Amer.  lack  of,  in 
War  of  1812,  332.  See  also  DEFENSE, 
NATIONAL. 

PRESIDENT:  Franklin  on  exec,  com.,  162; 
Dr.  Rush  on  powers  of,  187;  judiciary 
appointed  by,  209;  choice  of,  by  State 
legislatures,  217;  powers  of,  199,  200, 
201,  204,  209,  213;  controv.  over 
powers  of,  241;  Genet  on,  252;  Burr- 
Jefferson  contest  for,  265;  must  give 
information  to  Cong.,  266;  empowered 
to  deport  aliens,  272,  274;  Const, 
amended  on  election  of,  286,  287; 
elected  by  bosses,  296;  House  of  Rep. 
elects  J.  Q.  Adams,  314;  use  of 
patronage  by,  317,  338;  Southern 
monopoly  of  the  office,  338,  344; 
Hartford  Conv.  proposes  single  term, 
339;  Washington  declines  3d  term, 
340;  Monroe's  book  on,  344;  election 
of,  380;  electors  appointed  by  S.  C. 
legis.,  389;  Buchanan  on  limit  of 
powers  of,  399,  400;  elect,  of  Lincoln 
no  ground  for  secession,  388,  392, 
399,  405  et  seq.;  foreign-born  excluded 
from  the  office,  413;  succession  to  the 
office,  414  f.  n.;  proposal  of  dual 
Presidency,  426;  powers  of,  in  C.  S.  A., 
431- 

PRESS:  colonial,  opposition  of,  to  Stamp 
Act,  34;  freedom  of,  upheld  in  Va. 
Bill  of  Rights,  136;  Jefferson  on,  181; 
Dr.  Rush  advises  mailing  newspapers 
free,  188;  freedom  of,  in  Pinckney 
plan  of  Const.,  200;  Repub.  (Dem.) 
press  supports  Genet,  251;  and  the 
French  Rev.,  271;  freedom  of,  an 
issue  in  the  sedition  law,  280,  281; 
of  New  Eng.  denounces  embargo, 
323;  Abolition,  denounced  by  Pres. 
Buchanan,  398;  abuses  of,  to  be 
borne  for  sake  of  freedom,  421. 

PRESTON,  THOMAS,  Brit,  officer:  com 
mander  of  troops  in  Boston  Massacre, 
75;  trial  of,  77- 

PRIESTLEY,  DR.  JOSEPH,  scientist:  b. 
Eng.  1733,  d.  Pa.  1804;  son  of 


mechanic;  educ.  for  dissenting  minis 
try;  rejected  for  liberal  views;  teacher; 
writes  school-books;  influenced  to 
ward  science  by  Franklin;  writes 
books  on  electricity,  light,  etc.;LL.D. 
Univ.  Edin.j  mem.  Royal  Soc.; 
corrects  histor.  errors  in  Blackstone; 
discoverer  of  oxygen,  etc.;  independ 
ent  preacher;  controversialist  in 
theology;  champion  of  radical  politics; 
church  and  house  burned  by  mob; 
comes  to  U.  S.  1794;  estab.  laboratory 
Northumberland,  Pa.;  lectures  and 
writes  many  books  on  religion;  on 
Ames,  230.  j 

PRIMOGENITURE:  abolished  in  Va.  by 
Jefferson;  in  S.  C.  by  Gov.  E.  Rut- 
ledge,  146. 

PRINCETON:  Nassau  Hall  a  school  of 
statesmanship,  164. 

PRIVATEERING:  acts  of  Genet,  244,  247, 
249,  250;  Brit.,  in  war  with  France, 
1805,  309;  in  War  of  1812,  335. 

PROPERTY:  nature  of,  Chatham  on,  97; 
as  basis  of  representation,  168  et  seq.; 
voting  by  interest  in,  in  ships,  222; 
church,  controv.  over,  in  N.  Y.,  290; 
nature  of,  J.  Randolph  on,  321.  See 
FEDERAL  PROPERTY;  LAND;  SLAV 
ERY. 

PSYCHOLOGY:  paradoxical,  of  ParL,  24; 
Burke's  knowl.  of,  103,  109;  three 
dep'ts  of  intellect  exemplified  in  J. 
Adams,  143. 

PUBLICITY  IN  LEGISLATION:  J.  Otis  on, 
9,  10;  Jefferson  on,  191,  192;  secrecy 
of  Know-Nothings,  289,  291,  292; 
Banks  on  invisible  gov't,  295;  on 
secret  diplomacy,  296;  secrecy  of 
Catholics,  296. 

PUBLIC  OPINION:  Washington  on,  185. 
See  also  CIVIL  RIGHTS;  DEMOCRACY; 
PRESS. 

"PUBLIUS":  pen-name  of  joint  authors 
of  Federalist,  227. 

PUGH,  GEORGE  E.  [O.]:  b.  1822,  d.  1876; 
for  sketch  see  Vol.  II.;  borrows  phrase 
from  J.  Quincy  2d,  61. 


QUEBEC:  see  CANADA. 

QUIDS:  John  Randolph's  faction,  304, 
313. 

QUINCY,  JOSIAH  2d  [Mass.]:  b.  1744,  d. 
I775J  writes  against  Brit,  taxes,  etc., 
61;  counsel  of  soldiers  in  Boston 


Massacre,  77;  interview  with  Lord 
North,  96;  death,  96. 
QUINCY,  JOSIAH  3d  [Mass.]:  b.  1772,  d. 
1864;  sketch  of,  304,  336;  opposes 
admis.  of  La.,  304;  opposes  embargo, 
336;  advocates  strong  navy,  336. 


RAILROADS:  see  PACIFIC;  PANAMA. 
RAMSAY,  DAVID  [S.  C.]:  b.  1749,  d.  1815; 
M.  C.  1782-86;  pres.  of  Cong.  1786; 


his  Hist.  of_Amer.  Revol.  ref.  to,  32. 

[Va.]: 


RANDOLPH,    EDMUND    JENNINGS 


b.  1753,  d.  1813;  sketch  of,  194; 
fathers  Madison's  plan  of  Const.,  199; 
supports  Va.  plan,  207;  supports 
ratif.  of  Const.,  231;  as  Att'y-Gen. 
drafts  Washington's  proc.  of  neut., 
242;  teaches  law  to  J.  Randolph,  311. 
RANDOLPH,  EDWARD,  Brit,  agt.:  b.  1620, 


d.  1694;  custom  off.  in  New  Eng.;  on 
Mass,  insubordination,  3. 

RANDOLPH,  JOHN  [Va.]:  b.  1727,  d. 
1784;  brother  P.  Randolph;  king's 
att'y;  retires  to  Eng.  on  outbreak  of 
Revol.  not  to  violate  oath  of  office; 
in  sympathy  with  Revol.;  law 
examiner  of  Henry,  24. 

RANDOLPH,  JOHN  [Va.]:  b.  1773,  d. 
1833;  on  Giles,  262;  organizes  anti- 
Jefferson  party  of  Quids,  304; 
sketch  of,  310;  opposes  non-inter- 


460 


Index 


Randolph,  John  —  Continued 

course  act,  310;  opposes  reg.  army 
312;  335;  leader  in  Chase  impeach., 
313;  arraigns  Clay,  314;  opposes 
increase  of  army,  320;  contradictory 
course  on  embargo,  320,  321,  335; 
opposes  war  with  Gt.  Brit.,  332; 
in  debate  with  Webster  on  Greek 
revol.,  354;  his  erraticism,  434. 


RANDOLPH,  PEVxpN  [Va.J:  b.  1721,  d. 
1775;  law  examiner  of  Henry,  24:  op 
poses  Stamp  Act  resol.  of  Henry,  28; 
sketch  of,  29;  ores,  of  Cont.  Cong.,  87. 


READ,  GEORGE  [Del.]:  b.  1733,  d.  1798; 
att'y-gen.  1763-75;  del.  Cont.  Cong. 
1775;  signs  Dec.  of  Ind.;  pres.  Del. 


const,  conv.;  del.  U.  S.  Const.  Conv.; 
Sen.  1789-93;  chief-jus.  Del.  1793- 
98;  on  term  of  Senators,  215. 

REBELLION:  see  INSURRECTION;  SECES 
SION. 

RECALL:  see  JUDICIARY;  OFFICERS. 

RECONSTRUCTION:  Stephens  in,  433. 

REFERENDUM:  P.  Webster  on,  191. 

RELIGION:  Henry's  speech  against  Va. 
clergy,  24,  25;  early  theol.  lit.,  35; 
liberality  in,  of  J.  Adams,  36  f.  n., 
37;  theol.  tone  of  J.  Quincy  2d's 
oratory,  62;  relig.  freedom  in  Arner., 
Burke  on,  107,  no;  in  Va.,  Madison 
on,  137,  139,  140,  141;  T.  Paine  on 
relig.  freedom,  138;  polygamy  de 
fended  on  ground  of,  138  f.  n.  ;  church 
of  England  estab.  in  colonies,  139; 
Va.  Statute  of  Relig.  Freedom,  140, 
253;  Jefferson  and  M.  Hale  on  legality 
of  Christianity,  152;  Dr.  Rush  founds 
Phila.  Bible  Soc.  and  advocates 
reading  of  Bible  in  schools,  i66t 
freedom  of,  in  Const.,  200;  freedom 
of,  a  purpose  of  U.  S.  gov't,  214; 
Franklin  advises  prayer  in  Const. 
Conv.,  220;  Repub.  (Dem.)  party 
champion  of  rel.  freedom,  240;  toler. 
of,  Barry  on,  293;  Jefferson  on  relig. 
freedom,  297.  See  also  CATHOLICS; 
CIVIL  RIGHTS;  DWIGHT;  PAINE,  T.; 
PRIESTLEY. 

REPRESENTATION:  J.  Otis  opposes 
virtual,  of  colonies  in  Parl.,  13;  by 
colonies  in  Stamp  Act  Cong.,  30; 
Chatham  on,  and  taxation,  44  et  seq., 
97;  "rotten  boroughs"  in  Eng.,  45, 
54;  Mansfield  on,  54;  American,  in 
Cong.,  debate  on,  56;  Cont.  Cong,  on, 
88;  Burke  on,  in;  Jefferson  on,  152; 
based  on  pop.,  154,  162,  172,  174;  on 
prop.,  168  et  seq.;  353;  Indians  not 
taxed  excluded  from,  168,  201;  based 
on  value  of  land  and  houses,  169; 
Washington  on  effect  of  pub.  opin.  on, 
185;  Dr.  Rush  on,  187;  debates  on,  in 
Const.  Conv.,  199  et  seq.;  slave, 
opposed  by  J.  Quincy  3d,  304,  by 
Hart.  Conv.,  339!  instructions  by 
constituency,  382;  dist.  system  of, 
adopted  in  Ga.,  432.  See  also  CON 
GRESS;  ELECTIVE  FRANCHISE;  GERRY 
MANDER;  TAXATION;  WOMAN  SUF 
FRAGE. 

REPUBLICANISM:  Washington  on  sym 
pathy  with,  342.  See  also  FRANCE; 
GREECE;  LATIN-AMERICAN  REPUB 
LICS;  MONROE  DOCTRINE. 


REPUBLICAN,  AMERICAN,  PARTY:  first 
name  of  Know-Nothings,  q.  v.,  288. 

REPUBLICAN,  DEMOCRATIC,  PARTY:  out 
growth  of  Anti-Federalism,  186; 
history  of,  240  et  seq.;  opposes  inter, 
improv.,  326.  See  also  DEMOCRATIC 
PARTY;  NULLIFICATION;  STATB 
RIGHTS. 

REPUBLICAN,  NATIONAL,  PARTY:  adm. 
of  J.  Q.  Adams,  285,  354;  formation 
of,  354,  359;  thrilled  by  Webster's 
Reply  to  Hayne,  370.  See  also  WHIG 
PARTY. 

REPUBLICAN  PARTY:  organization  of. 
289;  Mass.  Know-Nothings  join,  294 
f.  n.;  fanaticism  of,  Chesnut  on,  389; 
Union  Democrats  at  mercy  of,  392; 
endorses  Pacific  R.  R.,  410;  policy  of, 
to  compel  emancipation,  420. 

REVENUE:  see  FINANCE;  TARIFF;  TAXA 
TION. 

REVOLUTION,  RIGHT  OF:  Hayne  on,  374; 
Webster  on,  384;  Pres.  Buchanan  on, 
399,  400;  Wigfall  on,  405;  Baker  on, 
418.  See  also  INSURRECTION;  SECES 
SION. 

REVOLUTION,  AMERICAN:  see  INDE 
PENDENCE;  WAR  OF  THE  REVOLUTION. 

REVOLUTION,  ENGLISH:  see  GREAT 
BRITAIN. 

REVOLUTION,  FRENCH:  ref.  to,  253,  271. 
See  FRANCE. 

RHETORIC:  see  ORATORV, 

RHETT,  R.  BARNWELL  [S.  C.]:  b.  1800 
d.  1876;  for  sketch  see  Vol.  II. 
Southern  "fire-eater,"  270. 

RHODE  ISLAND:  unrepr.  in  Const.  Conv. 
186,  192,  203;  ratifies  Const.,  239 
carried  by  Know-Nothings,  290 
repr.  in  Hartford  Conv.,  337. 

ROBESPIERRE,  MAXIMILIEN  MARIE 
ISIDORE,  Fr.  revolutionist:  his  fit 
punishment,  293. 

ROCKINGHAM,  CHARLES  WATSON  WENT- 

WORTH,  MARQUESS  OF,  Brit,  premier: 

policy  of,  40;  fall  of  his  ministry,  57. 
RODNEY,    CAESAR    [Del.]:    b.    1728,    d. 

1784;  sheriff;  judge;  raises  troops  for 

French  war;  assemblyman;  del.  Stamp 

Act    Cong.;    opposes    importation    of 

slaves  into  Del.;  on  com.  of  intercol. 

corres.;  del.  to  Cont.  Cong.;  maj.-gen. 

in    Rev.;    signs    Dec.    of    Ind.;    pres. 

Del.  1788-92;  on  J.  Otis,  32. 
ROLFE,     JOHN:     marries     Pocahontas; 

ancestor  J.  Randolph,  310. 
ROLLIN,    CHARLES,    Fr.    historian:    on 

eloquence,  28. 

ROMAN  CATHOLICS:  see  CATHOLICS. 
ROME,    ANCIENT:    the    decemviri,    160; 

gov't  of,  171;   dual  consulate  in,  204; 

patrician  rule  in,  214. 
ROOSEVELT,  THEODORE  [N.  Y.]:  b.  1858; 

grad.  Harvard   1880;  legislator   1882; 

defeated  Mayor  of  N.  Y.  1886;  U.  S. 

Civil  Service  comm'r,  1889-95;    pres. 

police  bd.  N.  Y.  City  1895-97;  Ass't. 

Sec.  Navy  1897-98;  col.  in  Sp.  War; 

gov.  N.  Y.  1899-1900;  V.-Pres.  1901; 

25th    Pres.    1901-1909;    defeated    for 

Pres.  1912;  seeks  3d  term,  340  f.  n. 
ROUSSEAU,      JEAN     JACQUES,      French 

polit.     philosopher:     on     the     social 

contract,  12  f.  n. 


Index 


461 


RUFFIN,    EDMUND    [Va.]:    b.    1794,    d. 

1865;  editor  agric.   paper;   fired   first 

shot  at  Ft.  Sumter;  urges  secession  of 

S.  C.,  391. 
RUGGLES,  TIMOTHY  [Mass.]:  b.  1711,  d. 

1795;  sketch  of,   29;  opposes  Stamp 

Act,  29. 
RUSH,  DR.  BENJAMIN  [Pa.]:  b.  1745,  d. 

1813;  on  T.  Paine,  125;  in  debate  on 

Articles    of   Confederation,   163,   170; 

sketch  of,    165;   plan  of  Constitution 

by,  186. 
RUSH,  RICHARD  [Pa.]:  b.  1780,  d.  1859; 

son  of    Dr.    Rush;     grad.    Princeton; 

adm.  bar;  won  distinction  by  defend 
ing  William   Duane  on  libel  charge; 

att'y-gen.    Pa.    1811;     comp.    U.    S. 

treasury     1811;      U.     S.     Att'y-Gen. 

1814-17;   Sec.    State    1817;   min.    Gt. 

Brit.    1817-25;   Sec.   Treas.    1826-30. 


min.  France  1847-57;  in  re  Monroe 

Doct.,  346,  347-       , 

RUSSELL,  JONATHAN  [R.  I.]:  b.  1771,  d. 
1832;  min.  to  Norway  and  Sweden 
1814-18;  M.  C.  1821-23;  negotiates 
Treaty  of  Ghent,  265. 

RUSSIA:  see  ALASKA;  ALEXANDER  I.; 
CATHERINE  II. 

RUTLEDGE,  EDWARD  [S.  C.]:  b.  1749,  d. 
1800;  upholds  Galloway  plan  of 
union,  91;  sketch  of,  145;  opposes 
Dec.  of  Ind.  as  premature,  147; 
secures  vote  of  S.  C.  for  Dec.,  157; 


on  com.  to  frame  Art.  of  Confed.,  163. 
JS.  C.J:  b.  1739,  d. 
1800;  for  sketch  see  Vol.  II.;  orator  of 

RUTLEDGE,  JOHN,  JR'.  [s.  C.I:  b.  1766, 
d.  1819;  sketch  of,  270;  upholds  alien 
laws,  270. 


RUTLEDGE,  JOHN,  SR.  [S.  C.J:  b.  1739 

1800;  for  sketch  see  V 
the  Cont.  Cong.,  146. 


SAINT  ILDEFONSO,  TREATY  OF,  see 
TREATIES. 

SAMPSON,  WILLIAM,  Irish  patriot:  his 
pen-picture  of  Jefferson,  306. 

SANDWICH,  JOHN  MONTAGUE,  EARL  OF, 
Brit,  statesman:  denounces  Franklin, 
98,  99- 

SARGENT,  EPES  [Mass.]:  b.  1813,  d. 
1880;  editor  and  author;  on  Clay,  328. 

SCHOULER,  JAMES  [Mass.]:  legal  author 
and  historian;  on  Jefferson,  153. 

SCIENCE:  see  FRANKLIN;  PRIESTLEY. 

SCOTCH-IRISH:  patriotism  of,  in  Rev., 
165. 

SCOTLAND:  union  with  Eng.,  171,  223. 

SCOTT,  WINFIELD  [Va.]:  b.  1786,  d. 
1866;  educ.  William  and  Mary  and 
West  Point;  adm.  bar;  brig.-gen.  in 
War  of  1812;  ma j. -gen.;  Fed.  com 
mander  Charleston  in  nullif.  agita 
tion;  in  Seminole  war;  removes 
Cherokees  from  Ga.;  comm. -in-chief, 
1841;  in  Mex.  War;  Whig  cand.  for 
Pres.  1852;  comm.-in-chief  Civil  War 
till  resig.  Oct.  31,  1861;  nickname, 
"Fuss  and  Feathers";  strict  disciplin 
arian;  strong  loyalist;  expert  strate 
gist;  sketch  of,  393;  urges  strong 
measures  against  secession,  393,  394; 
his  position  on  slavery,  432. 

SEARCH,  RIGHT  OF:  see  IMPRESSMENT. 

SECESSION:  allegiance  to  State  precedes 
that  to  Union,  129;  State  rights  a 
bar  to  disunion,  170,  172,  205;  pro 
posed  during  Confed.,  182;  a  prob 
ability, '"221;  threatened  by  J.  Quincy 
3d,  305;  threatened  by  New  Eng. 
against  embargo,  323;  proposed  by 
Hart.  Conv.,  339;  J.  Q.  Adams  on, 
349;  threats  of,  against  tariff  of  1832, 
376  et  seq.;  Webster  on,  384;  history 
of,  387  et  seq.  See  also  NULLIFICA 
TION;  PICKENS;  REVOLUTION;  SEC 
TIONALISM;  SOVEREIGNTY;  STATE 
RIGHTS;  UNION. 

SECRECY:  see  PUBLICITY. 

SECTIONALISM:  fomented  by  repeal  of 
Mo.  Comp.,  291;  J.  Randolph  on 
"doughfaces,"  313;  caused  by  em 
bargo,  323;  Hart.  Conv.  on,  338; 


["  Washington     on,     340;     division     of 

Earties  on  slavery,  388;  enmity 
etween  North  and  South,  406;  over 
annex,  of  terr.,  416;  Sen.  Hunter 
proposes  equal  division  of  Sup.  Ct. 
between  North  and  South,  426.  See 
also  NULLIFICATION;  SECESSION; 
STATE  RIGHTS;  UNION. 

SEDITION  LAW:  debate  on,  277  et  seq.; 
opposed  by  Clay,  326;  protest  against, 
effective,  373.  See  also  KENTUCKY 
AND  VIRGINIA  RESOLUTIONS. 

SEMINOLE  WAR:  see  WARS,    INDIAN. 

SENATE:  debate  in  Const.  Conv.  on, 
212  et  seq.;  arist.  nature  of,  241; 
power  over  treaties,  246,  254;  Galla- 
tin  excluded  from,  on  ground  of  insuff. 
residence,  256;  decorum  of,  violated 
by  J.  Randolph,  314;  expulsion  of 
Southern  Senators  from,  391  f.  n.j 
Stephens  unseated  on  ground  of 
unreconstruction  of  Ga.,  432.  See 
also  CONGRESS. 

SEWALL,  SAMUEL  [Mass.]:  b.  Eng.  1652, 
d.  1730;  grad.  Harvard;  preacher, 
then  lawyer;  opp.  to  slavery;  chief- 
jus.  1718-28;  judge  in  witchcraft 
cases,  269. 

SEWALL,  SAMUEL  [Mass.] :  great-grand 
son  of  preceding;  b.  1757,  d.  1814; 
sketch  of,  269;  in  debate  on  Alien 
Laws,  269,  271,  273. 

SEWALL,  STEPHEN  [Mass.]:  b.  1704,  d. 
1760;  grad.  Harvard;  judge  sup.  ct. 
1739-52;  chief -jus.  1752-60;  judge  in 
Writs  of  Assist,  case,  8. 

SEWARD,  WILLIAM  HENRY  [N.  Y.J:  b. 
1801,  d.  1872;  for  sketch  see  Vol.  II.; 
sidesteps  Know-Nothingism,  294; 
his  "Irrepressible  Conflict"  speech 
ref.  to,  403. 

SEYMOUR,  HORATIO  [N.  Y.] :  b.  1810, 
d.  1886;  Democrat;  assemblyman; 
Speaker,  1845;  defeated  for  Goy.iSso; 
Gov.  1852-54;  vetoed  prohibitory 
liquor  law;  defeated  for  Gov.  1854; 
Gpv.  1862-64;  quells  draft  riot  N.  Y. 
City  1863;  defeated  for  Gov.  1864; 
defeated  for  Pres.  1868;  nomin.  for 
Pres.,  389  f.  n. 


462 


Index 


SHARSWOOD,  GEORGE  [Pa.]:  b.  1810,  d. 
1883;  chief-jus.  Pa.  1878-82;  jurist 
and  legal  author;  on  Marshall,  233. 

SHAYS,  DANIEL  [Mass.]:  b.  1747,  d. 
1825;  cap't.  in  Rev.;  leader  of  insur 
rection,  1 80. 

SHERMAN,  ROGER  [Ct.J:  b.  1721,  d. 
1793;  sketch  of,  150;  on  com.  to 
draft  Dec.  of  Ind.,  150;  on  com.  to 
frame  Art.  of  Confed.,  163;  in  debate 
on  Senate  in  Const.  Conv.,  223. 

SHIELDS,  JAMES:  b.  Ire.  1810,  d.  1879; 
emig.  111.  1826;  lawyer;  State  legisla 
tor;  brig. -gen.  Mex.  War;  Gov. 
Oregon  1848;  Sen.  from  111.  1849-53; 
Sen.  from  Minn.  1858-59;  gen.  in 
Civil  War  1861-63;  legislator  in  Mo.; 
in  Mex.  War,  412. 

SINGLE  TAX:  see  LAND;  TAXATION. 

SLAVERY:  connection  with  labor,  viii.; 
J.  Otis  and  J.  Adams  on,  12;  R.  H. 
Lee  on,  27 ;  Som(m)ersett  liberated  by 
Mansfield,  53;  Burke  on,  no;  slaves 
armed  by  Brit.,  129;  slave  trade 
opposed  by  Gov.  E.  Rutledge,  S.  C., 
146;  Bland  on,  152;  Jefferson  on, 152, 
154;  Lincoln  on,  155,  190  f.  n.;  Jeffer 
son's  censure  of  Gt.  Brit,  for  slave 
trade,  158;  essays  on,  by  Dr.  Rush, 
166;  Pa.  Abol.  Soc.,  166;  S.  Hopkins 
opposes,  167;  on  slaves  as  property 
and  their  repres.  in  Cong.,  168  el  seq., 
173.  179;  debates  on,  in  Const.  Conv. 
ref.  to,  225;  chief  issue  in  Pres.  camp, 
of  1856,  291;  affinity  of  Abolitionism 
and  Know-Nothingism,  293,  294; 
J.  Quincy  3d  opposes  slave  repres., 


304;  views  of  J.  Randolph-  on,  311; 
Clay  proposes  grad.  emancip.  in  Ky., 
326,-  Hart.  Conv.  opposes  slave  repres., 


339;  Calhoun  on  wretched  condition 
of  slaves,  384;  Jackson  on,  as  pretext 
for  secession,  387;  \  economic  and 
constit.  aspects  of,  388,  397;  anti- 
slavery  petition  in  First  Cong.,  388; 
Lincoln  elected  Pres.  on  issue  of,  388; 
division  of  Dem.  party  on,  388;  Pres. 
Buchanan  on  Abolitionism,  398; 
anti-slavery  Senators,  403;  pro- 
slavery  views  of  Dem.  party,  403; 
Northern  hostility  toward,  406,  416; 
recog.  of,  to  conciliate  South,  410; 
Benjamin  on,  411,  415;  Baker  on,  419; 
Republicans  intend  to  compel  eman., 
420  et  seq.;  destruction  of,  by  econo 
mic  law,  421;  abolition  of,  in  D.  C., 
425;  Crittenden  on  inter-State  slave 
trade,  425;  slavery  in  Fed.  arsenals, 
etc.,  425;  in  C.  S.  A.  Const.,  431; 
position  of  Gen.  Scott  on,  432;  debate 
between  Stephens  and  L.  D.  Campbell 
on  free  vs.  slave  labor,  432;  Stephens 
advocates  slave  trade,  433;  as  foun 
dation  stone  of  C.  S.  A.,  435.  See 
also  COLONIZATION;  DRED  SCOTT; 
FUGITIVE  SLAVE  LAW;  LIBERTY 
PARTY;  LA  FAYETTE. 
SLIDELL,  JOHN  [La.J:  b.  1793,  d.  1871; 
M.  C.  1843-45;  min.  to  Mex.;  Sen. 
1853-61;  envoy  of  C.  S.  A.  to  Gt. 
Brit.  1861;  captured  by  Commodore 
Chas.  Wilkes,  U.  S.  N.;  released  on 
demand  of  Gt.  Brit.;  law  partner  of 
Benjamin,  411. 


SMITH,  ADAM,  Eng.  economist:  author  of 
Wealth  of  Nations;  on  Brit,  colonial 
system,  6;  advocates  repr.  of  colonies 
in  Parl.,  56;  P.  Webster  compared 
with,  189. 

SMITH,  GOLDWIN,  Eng.  publicist:  b. 
1823,  d.  1910;  on  Clay,  328. 

SMITH,  MELANCT  (H)ON  [N.  Y.]:  b.  1724, 
d.  1798;  opposes  ratif.  of  Const.,  238; 
sketch  of,  238. 

SMITH,  ROBERT  [Pa.]:  b.  1757,  d.  1842; 
Sec.  Navy  1802-05;  Atty-Gen.  1805- 
09;  Sec.  State  1809-11;  refuses  to 
treat  with  Brit,  min.,  324. 

SMITH,  SYDNEY,  Eng.  clergyman  and 
humorist:  on  Webster,  355. 

SOCIAL  CONTRACT:  J.  Otis  and  Rousseau 
on  the,  12. 

SOCIALISM:  an  ism  of  the  North,  293. 

SOM(M)ERSETT:  slave  liberated  by  Mans 
field,  53. 

SONS  OF  LIBERTY:  colonial  patriotic 
ass'n;  principles  of,  34;  use  of,  by 
Sam  Adams,  69;  acts  of,  164. 

SOULE,  PIERRE  [La.]:  b.  France  1802,  d. 
1870;  lawyer;  Sen.  1847,  1849-53; 
min.  to  Spain,  1853-55;  in  Ostend 
conference,  296  f.  n. 

SOUTH  AMERICA:  see  LATIN-AMERICAN 
REPUBLICS. 

SOUTH  CAROLINA:  State  const.,  89,  128, 
129,  130;  vote  on  Dec.  of  Ind.,  150, 
157;  ratifies  U.  S.  Const.,  228;  exped. 
from,  against  Fla.,  244,  252;  tribute 
to,  by  Hayne,  359;  protests  against 
Tariff  of  1828,  360,  367,  372,  374; 
Webster  on,  362,  384;  threatens 
secession,  377;  ordin.  of  nullif.,  378, 
379.  38o;  secession  movement  in, 
388  et  seq.;  legis.  appoints  Pres. 
electors,  389;  secedes,  392,  409,  422; 
coercion  of  395  el  seq.;  Senators 
absent  from  Cong,  in  1860,  398; 
concil.  of,  402  et  seq.;  acts  of,  in 
secession,  427  et  seq.  See  also 
CHARLESTON. 

SOVEREIGNTY:  Burke  on,  104;  forfeited 
by  despotism,  148;  of  the  people. 
Genet  on,  250;  singleness  of,  Washing 
ton  on,  251;  Banks  on,  296;  Webster 
on,  364,  365;  allegiance,  Benjamin 
on,  414.  See  also  CONSTITUTION; 
GOVERNMENT;  INTERNATIONAL  LAW. 

SPAIN:  exped.  of  Genet  against  Fla., 
244;  negotiations  with  U.  S.  in  re 
navig.  Miss.,  265,  299;  France  cedes 
La.  to,  299;  Spain  retrocedes  La.  to 
France,  300;  cedes  Fla.  to  U.  S.,  302 
f.  n. ;  navy  of,  destroyed  by  Gt.  Brit., 
3i6 

SPARTA:  see  GREECE 

SPEECH,  FREE:  see  CIVIL  RIGHTS;  PRESS. 

SPENCER,  JOHN  CHARLES,  LORD  AL- 
THORP,  Brit,  home  sec.:  letter  of 
Sampson  to,  on  Pres.  Jefferson,  306. 

SPIES:  see  ESPIONAGE. 

STAMP  ACT:  ref.  to,  9;  hist,  of,  19  et  seq. 

STANTON,  EDWIN  MCMASTERS  [O.J:  b. 
1814,  d.  1869;  educ.  Kenyon  col!.; 
lawyer;  Free-Soil  Dem.;  practices  in 
Wash.,  D.  C.,  1848;  many  important 
cases;  counsel  for  McCormick  in 
Manny-McCormick  reaper  case,  1859, 
in  which  he  was  assoc.  with  Lincoln; 


Index 


463 


Stanton,  Edwin  McMasters — Continued 
Att'y.-Gen.  1860;  Sec.  War  1862-68; 
suspended  by  Pres.  Johnson  1867; 
restored  by  Cong.  1868;  suspension 
of,  cause  of  impeachment  of  Johnson; 
as  Atty.-Gen.,  394. 

STATE  RIGHTS:  in  Va.  Bill  of  Rights,  136; 
Jefferson  on,  154;  Cont.  Cong,  votes 
by  colonies,  170  et  seq.\  equality  of 
States  in  Confed.,  170,  173;  as  a  bar 
to  disunion,  170,  172,  205;  in  re 
western  lands,'  174  et  seq.;  debate  on, 
in  Const.  Conv.,  199  et  seq.;  Vattel  on 
equality  of  states  in  a  federation, 
217;  advoc.  by  Rep.  (Dem.)  party, 
240  et  seq.;  upheld  by  Federalists, 
302;  party  formed  by  J.  Randolph, 
313;  Calhoun  on,  331.  See  also 
BELGIC  CONFEDERACY;  COERCION; 
CONFEDERATION;  CONSOLIDATION; 
DARTMOUTH  COLLEGE  CASE;  GER 
MANY;  HOLLAND;  KENTUCKY  AND 
VA.  RESOLUTIONS;  NULLIFICATION; 
SECESSION;  SOVEREIGNTY;  SWITZER 
LAND;  UNION. 

STATES:  constitutions  of,  J.  Adams  on, 
133;  finances  of,  under  Confed.,  180; 
money  issued  by,  186;  admission  of, 
200,  338,  339;  ratif.  of  Cons,  by,  226 
et  seq.;  sup.  ct.  arbiter  between,  234; 
denounce  Ky.  and  Va.  Res.,  284; 
Northern,  acts  of,  against  Fugitive 
Slave  Law,  399;  new,  not  to  be  reed, 
in  C.  S.  A.,  434-  See  also  names  of 
States,  A labama,  etc.;  NEW  ENGLAND; 
STATE  RIGHTS. 

STATESMANSHIP:  prescience  a  quality  of, 
104,  305;  Burke  on  honesty  in  state 
craft,  105;  Burke  on,  of  North,  106, 
112;  Burke  on  magnanimity  in,  113; 
lack  of,  in  T.  Paine,  127;  Nassau  Hall 
a  school  of,  164;  advantage  of  dicta 
torship  in  war,  191;  Jefferson  on  com 
bating  error  with  truth,  292;  oppos 
ing  qualities  needed  for  for.  and  domes, 
policies,  307,  308;  "wheel-horses"  of 
gov't,  321;  developed  by  losing  con 
test  for  right,  384;  courage  a  quality 
of,  405.  See  also  sketches  of  leading 
statesmen. 

STEPHEN,  LESLIE,  Eng.  author:  on  T. 
Paine,  126 

STEPHENS,  ALEXANDER  H.  [Ga.]:  b. 
1812,  d.  1883;  opposes  secession,  393; 


Vice-Pres.   C.  S.  A.,  431;  sketch  of, 
431;  virtual  inaugural  of,  435. 

STEVENS,  JOHN  AUSTIN  [N.  Y.],  mer 
chant,  historian:  on  Gallatin,  259. 

STODDERT,  BENJAMIN  [D.  C.j:  b.  Md. 
1751,  d.  1813;  maj.  in  Rev.;  sec. 
board  of  war;  merchant  Georgetown, 
D.  C.;  Sec.  Navy  1798-1801;  acting 
Sec.  War;  first  Sec.  Navy,  267. 

STORY,  JOSEPH  [Mass.]:  b.  1779,  d.  1845 
grad.  Harvard;  leader  New  Eng.  bar; 
Rep.  (Dem.)  but  with  Fed.  leanings; 
Jefferson  called  him  "pseudo-Rep."; 
defends  embargo  1808;  M.  C.  1808- 
09;  advocates  repeal  of  embargo  as 
having  served  its  purpose;  Speaker 
Mass,  assembly  1811;  Assoc.  Just. 
Sup.  Ct.  1811-45;  creator  of  U.  S. 
marine  and  patent  law;  divides  with 
Kent  foundation  of  equity  jurisp.; 
denounced  slave  trade;  anti-State 
opinion  in  Dart.  Coll.  case;  opposed 
slavery  in  Mo.;  prof,  of  law  in  Har 
vard  1829-45;  acting  Chief -Justice 
on  death  of  Marshall;  author  many 
legal  works;  on  Mansfield,  50  f.  n.; 
on  common  law  in  Const.,  280  f.  n. 

STUART,  JOHN,  Brit,  officer:  b.  1700,  d. 
1779;  in  French  and  Ind.  War;  sup't 
Ind.  affairs  in  South  1763-1776; 
arraigned  by  Drayton,  129. 

"SUFFOLK  [MASS.]  RESOLVES":  against 
Parl.,  95- 

SUMNER,  CHARLES  [Mass.]:  b.  1811,  d. 
1874;  for  sketch  see  Vol.  II.;  anti- 
slavery  Sen.,  403. 

SUMTER,  FORT:  named  for  Revol.  Gen. 
Thomas  Sumter  [S.  C.];  bombard 
ment  of,  404,  428  et  seq.  Union 
meetings  in  North  on  fall  of,  413. 

SUPREME  C^URT:  arbiter  betw.  States, 
234;  as  judge  of  constitutionality, 
Hayne  on,  361,  372,  373;  Webster  on, 
367,  385;  conflict  with  Ga.  over 
Indian  juris.,  377  f.  n.;  decisions  of, 
favor  South,  418;  Hunter  on  equal 
division  of,  between  North  and 
South,  426.  See  also  CONSTITUTION, 
U.  S.;  DARTMOUTH  COLLEGE;  DRED 
SCOTT;  JUDICIARY. 

SWIFT,  JONATHAN,  Eng.  author:  hater 
of  Scots,  171  f.  n. 

SWITZERLAND:  Helvetic  Confed.  votes 
by  states,  173;  Martin  on,  218. 


TALLEYRAND-PERIGORD,  CHARLES  MAU- 

|  RICE  DE,  Prince  de  B6n6vent,  Fr. 
statesman:  insults  U.  S.  envoys,  267; 
makes  pacific  overtures  to  U.  S.,  268. 

TAMMANY  HALL:  Dem.  organ,  in  N.  Y. 
City;  History  of,  ref.  to,  63  f.  n.; 
naturalization  frauds  by,  63  f .  n. 

TARIFF:  retaliatory,  34;  devel.  of  home 
mfr.,  60;  Drayton  eulogizes  free  trade, 
130;  Cong,  of  Confed.  adopts,  179, 
180;  N.  Y.  delays  agreement  to,  180; 
P.  Webster  advocates  free  trade,  189; 
Clay  arraigned  by  Giles  for  views  on, 
262;  effect  of  war  on,  308  f.  n.;  prot. 
tariff  of  1816,  308,  365;  protective, 
advocated  by  Clay,  326,  328,  329; 


by  Hamilton,  329;  tariff  of  1828 
(abominations)  gives  rise  to  nullif. 
movement,  348;  Webster  opposes 
"Amer.  system,"  354,  supports  ta 
riff  of  1828,  354;  Va.  protests  against, 
360;  exclusively  in  hands  of  Fed. 
gov't,  365,  366;  Clay  violates  promise 
to  reduce,  376;  S.  C.  and  Ga.  resist, 
367,  372,  374,  377;  S.  C.  declares  act 
of  1832  void,  378;  Pres.  Jackson 
proposes  reduction  of,  379;  for  revenue 
with  incidental  protection,  Van 
Buren  supports,  382;  Grundy  on 
constitutionality  of  acts  of  1828  and 
1832,  383;  must  be  uniform  through 
out  Union,  385;  U.  S.  customs  col- 


464 


Index 


Tariff — Continued 

lected  in  S.  C.  after  secession,  401; 
act  of  1857,  425;  free  trade  in  C.  S. 
A.  Const.,  431. 

TAXATION:  of  tobacco  by  James  I.,  2; 
Molasses  Act,  4,  7,  13,  19;  J.  Otis  on 
inter,  and  exter.  taxes,  13;  for  regul. 
of  trade,  16,  18  et  seq.;  British  cider 
tax,  17;  American,  Chatham  on,  19, 
44  et  seq.,  97,  98;  Taxation  no  Tyranny 
by  Dr.  Sam'l  Johnson,  31;  early 
Amer.  works  on,  35,  36;  controv. 
over,  in  Md.t  36;  Chatham  on,  44 
et  seq.;  debate  on,  between  Camden 
and  Mansfield,  53  et  seq.;  incidence  of, 
54,  55;  Burke  on,  55;  Adam  Smith 
advocates  repr.  in  Parl.  based  on 
national  rev.,  56;  the  Townshend 
taxes,  58  et  seq.;  colonists  reject  offer 
of  Parl.  to  remove  taxes  save  on  tea, 
73;  Phila.  merchants  appeal  to  Lon 
don  merch.  against  taxes,  73;  duties 
removed  save  on  tea,  75;  non-con 
sumption  agreements,  81,  86;  practi 
cal  identity  of  exter.  and  inter,  taxes, 
88;  Cont.  Cong,  protests  against,  88; 
Dickenson's  letters  on,  93;  Parl. 
concedes  error  in  taxing  Amer.,  106; 
of  Amer.,  Burke  on,  107  et  seq.; 
colonial,  Jefferson  on,  152;  Franklin 
would  base,  on  popul.,  162;  debate  on 
Fed.  rev.  in  Art.  of  Confed.,  167  et 
seq.;  poll  tax  on  laborers,  169;  of 
slaves,  169,  170;  P.  Webster  on,  as 
supreme  power  of  gov't,  190;  land 
value  as  standard  of,  191;  C.  Pinckney 
bases  on  popul.,  200;  controlled  by 
representation,  218;  voting  on,  in 
Senate  by  property  repr.,  222;  money 
bills  to  originate  in  House,  225;  war 
tax  in  breach  with  France,  267; 
South  resists  unauthorized,  361;  J. 
Randolph  on  war  taxes,  332;  heavier 
in  North  than  South,  338;  of  South  by 
North,  416;  of  offending  by  offended 
States,  Hunter  proposes,  426.  See 
also  TARIFF. 

TAYLOR,  HANNIS  [D.C.]:  b.  N.  C.,  1851; 
min.  to  Spain  1893-97;  historian;  on 
P.  Webster,  190  et  seq. 

TAYLOR,  ZACHARY  [La.]:  b.  Va.  1784,  d. 
1850;  I2th  Pres.  U.  S.;  for  sketch 
see  Vol.  II.;  secret  choice  of  Catholics 
for  Pres.,  297;  Jeff.  Davis  elopes  with 
his  daughter,  396. 

TEA:  see  BOSTON;  TAXATION. 

TECUMSEH,  Shawnee  chief:  b.  1768,  d. 
1813;  in  war  ending  with  treaty  of 
Greenville  1795;  in  1805  forms  union 
of  western  tribes  against  whites, 
claiming  land  could  not  be  alienated 
by  treaties;  demands  of  Gen.  Harri 
son  return  of  lands  1780;  absent  at 
battle  of  Tippecanoe  when  his  men 
were  defeated;  commands  Indian 
allies  of  Brit,  in  war  of  1812;  brig.- 
gen.;  saves  Amer.  from  massacre  at 
Ft.  Meigs;  battle  of  Tippecanoe,  333; 
killed  battle  Thames,  Oct.  5, 1813,  333- 

TENNESSEE:  adm.  Union  1796;  pro 
posed  expedition  from,  against  La., 
299;  financial  troubles  in,  382;  gov. 
of,  refuses  to  call  secession  conv.,  391; 
secedes  June  8,  1861. 


TENNYSON,  ALFRED,  Eng.  poet:  on 
French  and  Brit,  liberty,  255. 

TERRELL,  PROF.  GLANVILLE  [Ky.] : 
owner  Jefferson's  copy  of  Memoirs  of 
Wm.  Sampson,  306  f.  n. 

TERRITORIES:  organization  of,  175,  176; 
see  also  DRED  SCOTT;  MISSOURI 
COMPROMISE;  POPULAR  SOVEREIGNTY. 

TEXAS:  adm.  Union  1845;  war  of  indep., 
391;  in  secession  movement,  391; 


secedes,  393,  407;  annex,  of,  debate  on, 
between  Hale  and  Pierce,  402-  annex 
of,  causes  Mex.  War,  408;  Fed.  army 
in,  deserts  to  C.  S.  A.,  430;  in  organ, 
of  C.  S.  A.,  431. 

THACHER,  OXENBRIDGE  [Mass.]:  b. 
1720,  d.  1765;  sketch  of,  8;  counsel  in 
Writs  of  Assist,  trial,  8. 

THOMAS,  PHILIP  FRANCIS  [Md.]:  b. 
1810,  d.  1890;  grad.  Dickinson  Coll.; 
lawyer;  State  legis.;  Dem.;  M.  C. 
1839-41;  gov.  1848-51;  comp.  treas. 
Md.,  1851-53;  U.  S.  collector  port 
Bait.  1853;  comm'r  patents  1860; 
Sec.  Treas.  Dec.  1860- Jan.  1861;  seat 
in  Sen.  refused  him  as  an  abettor  of 
secession  1868;  M.  C.  1875-77;  resigns 
as  Sec.  Treas.,  394. 

THOMPSON,  RICHARD  WIGGINTON  [Ind.]: 
b.  Virginia  in  1809;  [clerk  in  Ky.; 
teacher  and  merchant  in  Ind.; 
lawyer;  State  legis.;  acting  lieut.-gov.; 
Whig;  M.  C.  1841-43,  1847-49; 
Repub.;  circuit  judge  Ind.  1867-69; 
Sec.  Navy  1877-81;  director  Panama 
R.  R.;  author  of  The  Papacy  and  Civil 
Power  and  Hist,  of  the  Tariff;  on 
Monroe,  345. 

THORPE,  FRANCIS  NEWTON,  Amer. 
historian:  on  Jefferson,  154. 

THUCYDIDES.  ancient  Greek  historian: 
student  of  debate,  iii;  author  of  Hist. 
of  the  Peloponnesian  War;  model  of 
Webster,  15?- 

THURLOW,  EDWARD,  BARON,  Eng.  states 
man:  as  atty.-gen.  would  legally 
forfeit  Amer.  charters,  107. 

TILDEN,  SAMUEL  JONES  [N.  Y.]:  b. 
1814,  d.  1886;  grad.  Univ.  of  N.  Y.; 
eminent  lawyer;  State  legis.;  drafts 
masterly  report  on  anti-rent  agitation; 
Free-Soiler;  opposed  autocratic  acts 
of  Lincoln  adm.;  State  legis.  exposes 
Tweed  frauds;  gov.  1875;  Dem. 
nominee  for  Pres.  1876;  contest  for 
Pres.  ref.  to,  434. 

Times,  London:  on  message  of  Pres. 
Buchanan,  409. 

TOBACCO:  taxed,  and  forbidden  export 
except  to  Eng.,  2. 

TORIES:  rise  of,  in  Eng.,  17;  in  Amer., 
17  f.  n.;  property  of,  confiscated,  30, 
|6,  37,  72;  arguments  of,  65;  flee  to 
Tova  Scotia,  149  f.  n.;  toryism  of 
Blackstone,  153;  States  refuse  am 
nesty  to,  178.  See  also  LEONARD. 

TOWNSHEND,  SIR  CHARLES,  Eng.  states 
man:  b.  1725,  d.  1767;  sketch  of,  22; 
supports  Stamp  Act,  22;  proposes 
colonial  taxes,  58. 

TRADE:  see  COMMERCE. 

TRADE-UNIONISM:  principle  of,  opposed 
by  Dray  ton,  73,  74.  See  also  SONS  or 
LIBERTY. 


36 
N< 


Index 


465 


TREASON:  trial  in  Eng.  of  Americans,  62 
et  seq.;  trial  of  Burr  for,  233;  nullifi 
cation  as,  Webster  on,  368;  Stephens 
imprisoned  for,  433. 

TREATIES:  Treaty  of  Paris  (1763),  18. 
175;  debate  on  foreign  alliances  in 
Cont.  Cong.,  131,  142;  com.  formed  to 
secure,  132;  commercial,  J.  Adams  on, 
132;  effect  on  for.  alliances  by  Dec. 
of  Ind.,  147,  149;  for.  nations  refuse, 
with  U.  S.  under  Confed.,  178,  180, 
216;  provided  for  in  Pinckney  plan 
of  Const.,  201;  Treaty  of  Paris  (1783), 
negotiators  exceed  instructions,  212; 
power  over,  in  Fed.  gov't,  215,  246, 
365;  differ  in  principle  from  leagues, 
219;  construction  of  Fr.  Alliance  by 
Wash.'s  proc.  of  neut.,  228,  243;  Jay's 
Treaty  with  Gt.  Brit.,  229,  254; 
power  over,  by  Senate,  246;  U.  S., 
contain  principle  that  free  ships  make 
free  goods,  250;  J.  Adams  secures 
comm.  treaty  with  Gt.  Brit.,  258; 
with  Holland,  258;  Jay's  Treaty 
causes  breach  with  France,  262; 
treaty  of  St.  Ildefpnso  with  Spain 
over  navig.  of  Miss.,  265;  Treaty 
of  Ghent,  265,  324,  337,  339;  with 
France  annulled,  267;  French 
treaty  of  1801,  268;  Treaty  of 
1806  with  Gt.  Brit,  refused  by 


Jefferson,  318,  344.  See  also  INDIANS; 
TECUMSEH. 

TRENT,  PROF.  WILLIAM  PETERFIELD 
IN.  Y.J:  historian:  on  Calhoun,  331. 

TRUSTS:  see  MONOPOLY. 

TRYON,  WILLIAM,  royal  gov.:  b.  1725, 
d.  1788;  gov.  N.  C.  1765-71;  gov. 
N.  Y.  1771-78;  destroys  Ct.  towns  in 
Rev.;  removes  R.  R.  Livingston  2d 
from  office,  145. 

TUCKER,  GEORGE  [Va.]:  b.  Bermuda 
1775.  d.  1861;  grad.  William  and 
Mary;  lawyer;  State  legis.;  M.  C. 
1819-25;  prof.  pol.  econ.  Univ.  of 
Va.;  historian;  on  Jefferson,  153. 

TUCKER,  ST.  GEORGE  [Va.]:  b.  Bermuda, 
1752,  d.  1828;  lieut.-col.  in  Rev.;  prof, 
law  William  and  Mary;  pres.  Va.  ct. 
of  appeals;  U.  S.  dist.  judge;  poet  and 
legal  writer;  step-father  of  J.  Ran 
dolph,  310. 

TWIGGS,  DAVID  EMANUEL  [Ga.]:  b. 
1790,  d.  1862;  maj.  in  War  of  1812; 
maj.-gen.  in  Mex.  War;  U.  S.  com 
mander  Dep't  of  Texas;  maj.-gen. 
C.  S.  A.;  turns  over  Fed.  army  in 
Tex.  to  C.  S.  A.,  430. 

TYLER,  JOHN  [Va.]:  b.  1790,  d.  1862; 
loth  Pres.;  for  sketch  see  Vol.  II.; 
removes  Whig  officeholders,  402; 
abandons  Whig  policies,  424. 


UNDERWOOD, ^FRANCIS  HENRY  [Mass.]: 
b.  1825,  d.  1894;  anti-slavery  man; 
clerk  Mass,  senate  1852;  founder 
Atlantic  Monthly;  clerk  super,  ct. 
Mass.  1859-70;  consul  at  Glasgow; 
author;  on  Ames,  230. 

UNION:  of  colonies,  Franklin  on,  18; 
Sam  Adams  on,  20;  Mansfield  on,  54; 
Mass,  calls  for,  59;  predestined  by 
nature  of  country,  70;  Albany  plan 
of,  72;  Henry  on,  89.  90,  91;  Gallo 
way's  plan  of,  90,  91;  Jefferson 
recommends,  152;  of  States,  extension 


of  terr.  inimical  to,  299,  305;  Webster 
on,  352,  356,  363,  .368,  369,  385; 
Henry  on  subordination  of,  to  liberty, 
378;  A.  S.  Clayton  on,  378;  Union 
Democrats,  392;  Black  on,  395; 
Buchanan  on,  399;  Jackson  on,  400; 
Madison  on,  400;  Hale  on,  405;  Lon 
don  Times  on,  409;  Pacific  R.  R.a  bond 
of,  410;  Baker  on,  417  et  seq  See  also 
CONFEDERATION;  CONSTITUTION, 

U.  S.;  CORRESPONDENCE;  NULLIFICA 
TION;  SECESSION;  STATE  RIGHTS. 
UNITED  STATES  BANK:  see  BANKING. 


VAN  BUREN,  MARTIN  [N.  Y.]:  b.  1782, 
d.  1862;  8th  Pres.;  for  sketch  see 
Vol.  II.;  V.-Pres.,  260;  Pres.,  382; 
cand.  for  Pres.  of  Liberty  party,  403. 

VATTEL,  EM(ME)RICH  VON,  Swiss  jurist: 
b.  1714,  d.  1767;  on  equal,  of  states 
in  a  federation,  217;  Genet  on,  248, 
249;  on  allegiance,  414. 

VERGENNES,  CHARLES  GRAVIER,  COMTE 
DE,  Fr.  premier:  in  French- Amer. 
alliance,  133. 

VERMONT:  adm.  Union  1791;  counties 
of,  repr.  in  Hart.  Conv.,  337. 

VICE-PRESIDENT:  debarred  by  usage 
from  debate,  349,  375-  See  also 
CLINTON,  GEORGE;  DALLAS;  PRESI 
DENT. 

VIRGINIA:  tobacco  taxed,  2;  appeals 
against  navig.  acts,  3;  protests  against 
Stamp  Act,  24  et  seq.;  religious  con- 
trov.  in,  24,  139;  gov.  of,  exacts  fees 

30 


on  land  patents,  29;  protests  against 
trial  of  Americans  in.  Eng.,  70; 
revives  intercolonial  corresp.,  78; 
sympathy  of,  for  Mass.,  85;  adopts 
non-impor.  agreement.  86,  134,  135; 
Burke  on  spirit  of,  108;  Jefferson 
revises  laws  of,  119;  armed  defense 
of,  119;  laws  revised  by  Wythe,  119; 
const,  of,  128,  134,  135,  137,  139; 
Statute  of  Relig.  Freedom,  140,  253, 
294;  recom.  Cong,  to  declare  indep., 
134;  Notes  on,  by  Jefferson,  153; 
demands  repr.  in  Cong,  by  popul., 
172,  174;  rights  in  western  lands,  175; 
cedes  lands  to  U.  S.,  176;  conflict 
with  Md.  over  interstate  com.,  183; 
repr.  at  Annapolis  Conv.,  185;  in 
struct,  to  deleg.  in  Const.  Conv.,  199; 
plan  of  Const.,  201  et  seq.,  adopted. 
226;  debate  in,  on  ratif.  of  Const., 
231-238;  trial  by  jury  in,  235; 


466 


Index 


Virginia — Continued 

reversal  of  polit.  opinion  in,  286  f.  n.; 
J.  Randolph  plans  to  model  it  after 
Eng.,  313;  protests  against  tariff  and 
intern,  improv.,  360;  will  aid  seceded 
States,  391;  postpones  secession,  392; 


John  Brown's  raid  in,  420;  agitates 
secession,  430;  secedes  Apr.  17,  1861. 
See  also  KENTUCKY  AND  VA.  RES.; 
NORFOLK. 

VOTING:     see     ELECTIVE     FRANCHISE; 
WOMAN  SUFFRAGE. 


W 


WADE,   BENJAMIN  P.   [O.]:  b.   1800,  d. 

1878;  on  Benjamin,  411;  sketch  of, 
414  f.  n.;  on  coercion  of  S.  C.,  414, 
416. 

WALDEGRAVE,  JAMES,  EARL  OF,  gov't 
agent  of  George  II.:  on  Chatham  and 
Mansfield,  52. 

WALES:  Burke  on  gov't  of,  in. 

WALPOLE,  ROBERT,  EARL  OF  ORFORD, 
Brit,  premier:  ignores  navig.  acts,  6; 
on  taxation  of  Amer.,  19;  opposed  by 
Chatham,  41  et  seq. 

WALSH,  MICHAEL  [N.  Y.] :  b.  1810,  d. 
1859;  pub.  Knickerbocker  until 
stopped  by  libel;  M.  C.  1853-5$;  on 
the  "underground  R.  R-,"  295. 

WAR:  advantages  of  dictatorship  in, 
191;  power  over,  in  Fed.  gov't,  215, 
365;  affects  prin.  of  tariff,  308  f.  n.; 
J.  Randolph  on  evils  of,  332;  laws  of, 
407;  invention  of  submarine  and 
torpedo,  see  FULTON.  See  also  ARMY; 
DEFENSE,  NATIONAL;  NAVY. 

WAR,  FRENCH  AND  INDIAN:  ref.  to,  7,  8. 

WAR  OF  THE  REVOLUTION:  Ramsay's 
Hist,  of,  32;  surrender  of  Charleston, 
74;  Sam  Adams  believes  it  inevita 
ble,  95;  battle  of  Lexington-Concord, 
1 20,  129;  employment  of  Indians  in, 
by  Brit.,  121;  Charlestown,  Mass., 
burned,  129;  Dray  ton's  Hist,  of,  131; 
U.  S.  naval  successes  in,  132;  milit. 
operations  of  1776,  149  f.  n.;  finances 
of,  165;  "not  over,"  speech  of  Dr. 
Rush,  186;  Treaty  of  Paris  (1783), 
212.  See  also  INDEPENDENCE;  TAXA 
TION. 

WAR,  FRANCO-BRITISH:  of  1793,  228, 
242,  244,  247,  249,  250;  of  1803,  308. 

WAR,  THREATENED,  WITH  FRANCE:  the 
breach  with  France,  262  et  seq.; 
excuse  for  Alien  Laws,  270;  J.  Ran 
dolph  on,  317. 

WAR  OF  1812:  opposed  by  J.  Randolph, 
312,  315,  317;  U.  S.  naval  success  in, 
315;  hist,  of,  324  et  seq.;  Hart.  Conv. 
opposes,  339;  Webster  opposes,  352; 
financial  depression  after,  382. 
WARS,  INDIAN:  under  Confed.,  210; 

Seminole,  326;  Black  Hawk,  396. 
WAR,  MEXICAN:  Gallatin  opposes,  258; 

cost  of,  in  money  and  lives,  409. 
WAR,  CIVIL:  a  test  of  the  Const.,  234. 

See  also  SECESSION. 
WARE  vs.  HILTON:  case  of  Brit,  debts, 

146,  232,  234. 

WARFIELD,  DR.  ETHELBERT  D.  iPa.j, 
educator:  on  Kentucky  Res.,  283  f.  n. 
WARREN,  DR.  J9SEPH  tMass.J:  b.  1741, 
d.  1775;  physician;  killed  at  Bunker 
Hill;  on  com.  of  protest  against  troops 
in  Boston,  75;  speech  on  Bost. 
Massac.,  77. 


WASHINGTON,  GEORGE  [Va.J:  b.  1732,  d. 
1799;  ist  Pres. ;  offers  to  raise  troops 
to  relieve  Boston  (1774),  85;  sanguine 
of  reconcil.  with  Gt.  Brit.,  95;  on 
com.  of  defense  Va.,  119;  on  T.  Paine, 
125-  T.  Paine  on,  127;  compar.  with 
J.  Adams,  142;  inaug.  of,  145,  311; 
milit.  acts  in  1776,  149  f.  n.;  proclaims 
Dec.  of  Ind.  to  army,  160;  advocates 
strong  Fed.  gov't,  179,  183;  on  Shays's 
Rebel.,  182;  advocates  Cont.  Conv., 
184,  185;  ch'm.  Const.  Conv.,  192; 
sketch  of,  193;  his  proc.  of  neut.,  227; 
on  repres.  in  House,  224  f.  n.;  Life  of, 
by  Marshall,  233;  elect.  Pres.,  239 
f.  n.;  his  policy,  242;  suppresses 
Genet's  privateering,  249,  250; 
assailed  by  Genet,  251,  252;  com 
mander  in  breach  with  France,  267; 
his  Farewell  Address,  340;  declines 
3d  term,  340;  his  reply  to  French  min. 
on  republicanism,  342;  recalls  Monroe 
from  France,  344;  Monroe's  A  View  of 
the  Executive,  344;  unanimous  choice 
for  Pres.,  344;  suppresses  Whiskey 
Insurrection,  414. 

WEBSTER,  DANIEL  [N.  H.  and  Mass.]: 
b.  1782,  d.  1852;  reconstructs,  speech 
of  J.  Adams,  90;  on  Jay,  92;  on  Jeffer 
son  and  Adams,  156,  157;  supreme 
Amer.  orator,  229;  on  the  Union,  234; 
on  Calhoun,  330;  debate  with  Hayne 
on  nature  of  Union,  350,  357  et  seq.; 
on  sale  of  pub.  lands,  351;  sketch 'of, 
351;  charged  with  inconsistency  by 
Hayne,  360;  on  Force  Bill,  384;  comp. 
with  Baker,  413,  423  f.  n.;  opposes 
compact  theory,  418. 

WEBSTER,  PELATIAH  [Pa.]:  b.  Ct.  1725, 
d.  1795;  sketch  of,  189;  on  the  Const., 
189  et  seq. 

WELLS,  WILLIAM  VINCENT:  Ameri 
can  historian;  on  Sam  Adams,  66, 
68. 

WEST  VIRGINIA:  adm.  Union  1863; 
admission  opposed  by  Crittenden, 
424. 

WHIGS:  Brit,  and  Amer.,  origin  of,  17 
f.  n.;  Whiggism  of  Coke,  Jefferson  on, 
151;  polit.  party;  ratifies  Know- 
Nothing  Pres.  nominees,  291;  admin, 
of  Harrison-Tyler  and  Taylor-Fill- 
more,  285;  oppos.  to  Pres.  Polk  on 
Mex.  War,  432;  Southern,  oppos.  of, 
to  Gen.  Scott  for  Pres.,  432.  See 
also  REPUBLICAN,  NATIONAL,  PARTY. 

WHISKEY  INSURRECTION:  Gallatin's 
part  in,  256;  suppression  of,  414. 

WHITE,  GREENOUGH,  Amer.  author: 
on  Jay,  92. 

WIGFALL,  Louis  T.  [Tex.]:  b.  1816,  d. 
1874;  on  coercion  of  S.  C.,  402,  406; 
sketch  of,  403. 


Index 


467 


WILKES,  JOHN,  radical  Brit,  statesman: 
b.  1727,  d.  1797;  seat  in  Parl.  refused 
him,  47,  50;  appeal  to  his  faction  by 
Cont.  Cong.,  93;  friend  of  Amer., 
121. 

WILKINSON,  WILLIAM  CLEAVER,  Amer. 
author:  on  Webster,  355. 

WILLIAM  AND  MARY:  a  school  of  const, 
law,  164,  165. 

WILSON,  JAMES  [Pa.]:  b.  1742,  d.  1798; 
on  powers  of  the  Crown,  114  et  seq.; 
sketch  of,  115;  opposes  Dec.  of  Ind. 
as  premature,  147;  in  debate  on  Art. 
of  Confed.,  163,  169,  173;  sketch  of, 
195;  in  debate  on  repres.  in  Const. 
Conv.,  202  et  seq.,  212;  on  Senate, 
214,  216,  220,  221. 

WINTHROP,  ROBERT  CHARLES  [Mass.]: 
b.  1809,  d.  1894;  grad.  Harvard; 
Speaker  Mass,  house;  M.  C.  1840-50; 
Sen.  1850-51;  on  Webster's  Reply 
to  Hayne,  357. 

WIRT,  WILLIAM  [Va.  and  Md.]:  b.  Md. 
1772,  d.  1834;  son  of  Swiss  father  and 
Germ,  mother;  lawyer  in  Richmond, 
Va.;  U.  S.  counsel  in  Burr  trial;  State 
legis.  1808;  Atty.-Gen.  U.  S.  1817- 
29;  removes  to  Wash,  and  Bait.  ; 


cand.  for  Pres.  of  anti-Masons  1832; 

receives  vote  of  Vt.;  author  of  Letters 

of  a  Brit.  Spy  (1803)  and  other  works; 

on   Henry,    24   et  seq.;   on    Marshall, 

233- 
WITCHCRAFT  CASES:  in  Salem,   Mass., 

ref .  to,  269. 
WITHERSPOON,    DR.    JOHN    [N.    J.]:   b. 

Scot.  1722,  d.  1790;  in  debate  on  Art. 

of  Confed.,  163,  169,  171;  sketch  of, 

164. 
WOMAN     SUFFRAGE:     justification     for 

Brit,  militancy,  37;  women  repr.  by 

men,  54  f.  n.;an  "ism"  of  the  North, 

293- 
WOODBURN,     PROF.     JAMES      ALBERT 

[Ind.],  historian:  joint  ed.  of  American 

Orations,    viii.;   his    Polit.    Parties   in 

U.  S.,  64  f.  n. 

WRITS  OF  ASSISTANCE:  trial  of,  7  et  seq. 
WYTHE,  GEORGE  [Va.]:  b.  1726,  d.  1806; 

revises  laws  of  Va.,  119;  sketches  of, 

146,  193;  supports  Dec.  of  Ind.,  148; 

teacher   of   Jefferson,    151;    the    law 

giver,   165;  supports  ratif.  of  Const., 

231,    235;   teacher   of    Marshall,    232; 

decision  on  Brit,  debts,  233;  teacher 

of  Giles,  261;  of  Clay,  325. 


X  Y  Z  MISSION:  hist,  of,  267. 
Y 


YANCEY,  WILLIAM  L.  [Ala.]:  b.  1814,  d. 

1863;  for  sketch  see  Vol.  II.;  Southern 

"fire-eater,"  270. 
YATES,    ROBERT   [N.   Y.]:   b.    1738,   d. 

1801;  keeps  minutes  of  Const.  Conv., 


iv.,  192;  sketch  of,  196;  on  Hamilton, 
210;  on  comprom.  com.,  224;  leaves 
Conv.,  225. 

YAZOO  FRAUD:  exposed  by  J.  Randolph, 
312. 


By  James  Albert  Woodburn 

(Professor  of  American  History  and  Politics,  Indiana  University) 

The  American  Republic  and  Its  Government. 

An  Analysis  of  the  Government  of  the  United 
States,   with   a   Consideration   of   its   Funda 
mental  Principles  and  of  its  Relations  to  the 
States  and  Territories. 
Octavo       ...  .         nett  $2  oo 

'*  A  sounder  or  more  useful  commentary  has  never  before 
seen  the  light.  Even  Mr.  James  Bryce's  study  of  the  '  Ameri 
can  Commonwealth '  must  on  the  whole  be  deemed  less  fruit 
ful.  Not  a  single  page  should  be  overlooked." — M.  W. 
HAZELTINE  in  the  N.  Y.  Sun. 

"  Every  citizen  that  wishes  to  obtain  a  clear  and  compre 
hensive  knowledge  of  the  government  under  which  he  lives 
can  hardly  forego  acquaintance  with  this  work,  and  its  orderly 
arrangement  and  lucid  style  will  make  the  acquaintance  a 
pleasure  as  well  as  a  profit." — Indianapolis  News. 

Political  Parties  and  Party  Problems  in  the 
United  States.  A  Sketch  of  American 
Party  History  and  of  the  Development  and 
Operations  of  Party  Machinery,  together  with 
a  Consideration  of  Certain  Party  Problems  in 
their  Relations  to  Political  Morality. 
Octavo.  New  Revised  Edition  .  net,  $2  50 

"  An  exceptionally  clear,  interesting,  and  impartial  history 
of  American  political  parties,  a  lucid  explanation  of  the  work 
ings  of  party  machinery,  and  a  strong  statement  of  the  moral 
evils  now  debasing  our  political  life,  and  the  remedies  which 
an  awakened  public  conscience  may  apply.  A  thoroughly 
good  book  for  the  school  and  for  the  study." — Outlook. 

Send  for  Descriptive  Circular 

G.  P.  PUTNAM'S  SONS 

(STEW   VORK  LONDON 


"  The  best  summary  at  present  available  of  the  political 
history  of  the  United  States." — FRANK  H.  HODDER,  Professor  of 
American  History  in  the  University  of  Kansas. 


American  Political  History 

1763=1876 
By  Alexander  Johnston 

Edited  and  Supplemented  by 

James    Albert   Woodburn 

Professor  of  History  and  Political  Science,  Indiana  University ; 

Author  of  "  The  American  Republic,"  "Political 

Parties  and  Party  Problems  in  the 

United  States,"  etc. 

In  two  parts )  each  complete  in  itself  and  indexed.    Octavo.    Each,  net,  $2.oo 

1.  The  Revolution,  the   Constitution,  and  the  Growth 
of  Nationality.    1763-1832. 

2.  The   Slavery    Controversy,  Secession,  Civil    War, 
and  Reconstruction.    1820-1876. 

These  volumes  present  the  principal  features  in  the  political  history  of  the 
United  States  from  the  opening  of  the  American  Revolution  to  the  close  of  the 
era  of  the  Reconstruction.  They  give  in  more  convenient  form  the  series  of 
articles  on  "American  Political  History"  contributed  to  Lalor's  "Cyclopedia 
of  Political  Science,  Political  Economy,  and  Political  History,"  by  the  late 
Professor  Alexander  Johnston. 

"These  essays,  covering  the  whole  field  of  the  political  history  of  the 
United  States,  have  a  continuity  and  unity  of  purpose  ;  introduced,  arranged, 
and  supplemented  as  they  have  been  by  Professor  Woodburn  (who  contributes 
a  very  necessary  chapter  on  the  Monroe  Doctrine)  they  present  a  complete  and 
well-balanced  history  of  the  politics  of  the  United  States." — Hartford  Cour  ant. 

G.  P.  PUTNAM'S  SONS 

New  York  London 


"A  work  indispensable  to  students  of  American  History/' 

The  Journal  of  the 

Debates  in   the   Convention 

Which  Framed 

The   Constitution   of   the 
United   States 

nay-September,  1787 
As  Recorded  by  JAHES  flADISON 

Edited  with  Introduction  and  Notes  by 

GAILLARD   HUNT 

2  Volumes,  8vo.     $4.50  net  per  set.      Uniform  with  Lodge  s 
Edition  of  "The  Federalist'' 

These  two  volumes  comprise  Madison's  complete  record  of  the  proceedings 
of  the  Constitutional  Convention,  and  give  in  the  notes  comparative  comments 
based  upon  that  journal  and  the  less  complete  chronicles  of  the  convention  made 
by  Yates,  King,  and  Pierce. 

James  Madison's  contemporaries  generally  conceded  that  he  was  the  lead 
ing  statesman  in  the  convention  which  framed  the  Constitution  of  the  United 
States  ;  but  in  addition  to  this  he  kept  a  record  of  the  proceedings  of  the  con 
vention  which  outranks  in  importance  all  the  other  writings  of  the  founders  of 
the  American  Republic.  He  is  thus  identified,  as  no  other  man  is,  with  the 
making  of  the  Constitution  and  the  correct  interpretation  of  the  intentions  of  the 
makers.  His  is  the  only  continuous  record  of  the  proceedings  of  the  conven 
tion.  He  took  a  seat  immediately  in  front  of  the  presiding  officer,  facing  the 
members,  and  took  down  every  speech  or  motion  as  it  was  made,  using  abbrevi 
ations  of  his  own  and  immediately  afterwards  transcribing  his  notes  when  he 
returned  to  his  lodgings.  A  few  motions  only  escaped  him,  and  of  important 
speeches  he  omitted  none.  The  proceedings  were  ordered  to  be  kept  secret, 
but  his  self-imposed  task  of  reporter  had  the  official  sanction  of  the  convention. 

Q.  P.  PUTNAM'S  SONS 
New  York  London 


By 

Arthur    Twining    Hadley 

(President  of  Yale  University) 

Economics 

An  Account  of  the  Relations  between 
Private  Property  and   Public  Welfare. 

Octavo,  gilt  top,  net,  $2.50. 

"  No  higher  compliment  can  be  paid  this  work  than  to 
say  that  it  is  hard  to  determine  whether  the  epithet 
judicial  or  judicious  would  more  appropriately  character 
ize  it.  ...  As  a  whole,  we  do  not  hesitate  to  affirm 
that  the  results  reached  by  Professor  Hadley  will  com- 
mend  themselves  to  candid  thinkers  as  true.  .  .  . 
It  will  not  only  be  found  invaluable  by  readers  at  large, 
but  will  also  at  once  command  the  attention  and  ad 
miration  of  economists  the  world  over." — Nation. 

"  It  is  difficult  to  exaggerate  the  wealth  of  thought 
and  the  keenness  of  analysis  contained  in  these  chapters. 
Each  one  is  crammed  full  of  matter,  presented  in  an  at 
tractive  manner,  illustrated  by  references  to  history  and 
to  contemporary  business  methods,  and  often  summed 
up  in  some  phrase  or  some  statement  of  likeness  or 
unlikeness  that  is  pregnant  with  suggestiveness."-— Prof. 
RICHMOND  MAYO- SMITH,  in  Political  Science  Quarterly 

G.  P.  Putnam's  Sons 

New  York  Londou 


RETURN  TO  o4SoM  WHICH  BORROWED 

LOAN  DEPT. 

«— •Ash'sftss?* 

Renewed  books  are  subject  to  immediate^ 


DEC8-18B584LRE! 


General  Librarj'     . 
University  of  California 
Berkeley 


YC  50201 


349311 


UNIVERSITY  OF  CAUFORNIA  LIBRARY 


